Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again can commit the sin that leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit).

For the same apostle John, after making mention of those who commit the sin that leads to death and forbidding prayer for them (1 John 5:16–17), immediately adds: “We know that anyone born of God does not commit sin” [that is, that kind of sin], “but the one who was born of God keeps himself safe, and the evil one does not touch him” (v. 18).

_______________________________

The issue raised here is whether a Christian can commit the sin unto death mentioned in 1 John 5:16–18. The Canons of Dort, Fifth Head of Doctrine, Article 6, specifically teach that God does not permit his elect to fall so far that they commit the sin unto death or the sin against the Holy Spirit (the so-called “unpardonable sin”) and plunge themselves into eternal ruin. The Canons do not deny that genuine believers can fall into serious sin; rather, they affirm that God preserves them from final apostasy and eternal destruction. John writes, “we know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him” (1 John 5:18). According to John, those born of God are protected from continuing in sin and from the wiles of the Devil (the evil one).

As noted in the previous articles on the fifth head of doctrine regarding perseverance, Arminians insist that salvation ultimately stems from an act of the human will—choosing to trust in Jesus Christ. Of course, Arminians argue that universal grace is available to all who seek it, but such grace remains merely provisional and conditional unless people avail themselves of it. If this is true, then it naturally follows that one can, through an exercise of the will, cease believing, fall from grace, and ultimately be lost.

The mention of a sin that leads to death in 1 John 5:16 is used as a proof text to support the idea that, should a Christian commit this sin, they do indeed fall away, nullifying the Reformed doctrine of final perseverance.

This is why it is important to notice that John makes a distinction here between sin that leads to death and sin that does not. John does not define this sin, and Christians have long been divided over its meaning. Some take this to refer to a specific sin, such as those mentioned in the Mosaic law as capital offenses (to be punished by death). Some of the church fathers interpreted this to mean that there were sins of ignorance and other sins stemming from wanton rebellion against God—the latter leading to death. This eventually led to Rome’s distinction between venial sin and the so-called seven deadly “mortal sins.” Rome’s view is in error, given the arbitrary nature of the distinction. It certainly does not fit the context here.

Others take John to be referring to the sin of apostasy. If true, John would be referring to a situation similar to that described in Hebrews 6:4–6.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

The author of Hebrews is referring to someone who returns to Judaism and works-righteousness after professing faith in Christ. If John were affirming the same situation here, the apostle would be saying that those who embrace the docetic Jesus of the antichrist commit a sin that severs them from Christ. If correct, this would pit John against himself. A Christian cannot commit such a sin: “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9). But if John is referring only to a professing Christian (and not a true believer)—someone who eventually reveals their unbelief by imbibing the spirit of antichrist and then committing apostasy—this interpretation would carry considerable weight. Remember, John does speak of those who have gone out from us because they were not of us (1 John 2:19).

A third option is that John is referring to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—a sin committed by the Pharisees, as recounted in Mark 3:28–30. “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin—for they were saying, He has an unclean spirit.’” The circumstances mentioned by Mark and those John describes are completely different. The Pharisees had just witnessed Jesus heal and perform exorcisms and then attributed God’s power to the work of Satan.

We do not know with certainty what sin John is discussing, although I think the evidence tends to point toward the apostasy of a professing Christian. At the very least, we must say what John says: There is a sin that leads to death, and this cannot be said of those born of God.

Two caveats apply here. The first is that any Christian who is afraid that they have committed such a sin has not. This sin can be committed only by those who are too hard of heart to worry about having committed it. The second caveat is given to us by John himself in verse 17: “all wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.” All violations of God’s law (in thought, word, and deed) are sin, and we must repent of them and seek forgiveness. All sin must be taken seriously and confessed.

Given John’s warning, in verses 18–20 John once again seeks to ensure that his readers have assurance of their salvation and understand that he has not been referring to them when he speaks of a sin that leads to death.

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

The Arminian view that a Christian can commit a sin unto death and be lost is in error.

Episode Synopsis:

In the opening eight verses of Romans chapter 3, Paul continues to address the matter of Jewish hypocrisy by asking a series of rhetorical questions that have obvious answers. The Jews were given many blessings by God as beneficiaries of the national covenant he made with Israel at Mount Sinai—especially the covenant sign and seal of circumcision. Yet the Jews mistakenly assumed that the mere possession of these blessings protected them from the wrath of God that was coming upon the Gentiles. The Jews condemned the Gentiles for their godless conduct but, as it turns out, were doing many of the same things themselves.

To expose such hypocrisy, Paul now takes up a role in which the apostle speaks as a former Jew, who is then answered by “Paul the apostle.” Each of these questions and answers is designed not only to expose Jewish hypocrisy but also to remind his Jewish readers of God’s right to judge his disobedient people. God alone tells the truth and does not lie. And those who claim to be spared from judgment by the mere possession of covenant blessings will find themselves exposed to the covenant curses and will realize that God is just and righteous when he punishes the disobedient—especially the hypocritical.

But Paul also addresses an objection he has heard that reveals the depths of misunderstanding regarding the judgment of God. Someone is claiming that since God judges sin and evil, then sin and evil are good things, since through them God reveals his righteousness. So why not sin if it serves God’s purposes? Paul quickly and forcefully rebukes those teaching such things. As he says in verse 8, their condemnation is just.

Show Notes:

Romans 3:1-8 presented me with a dilemma. I could have tagged this discussion on to the end of episode ten (Romans 2:17-29) which would make the episode run well over an hour, or I could have added it to the beginning of the next episode (Romans 3:9-20), which would have the same effect. Since it is best to cover Romans 3:9-20 in a single episode, I decided to treat verses 1-8 of Romans 3 separately, but since this meant a short run time (about about twenty-two minutes), I thought that this would be a good time to include bonus material on resources on Paul’s letters.

It was a difficult recording session—a technical issue took me a bit to figure out, it was very hot, and there was a bunch of outside noise to edit out.

Recommended Resources:

As mentioned, here’s a look at the Behind the Scenes at the Blessed Hope Podcast

Select Resources for the Study of Romans

B. B. Warfield: God Inspired Scripture

Connecting Scripture is a CSV (Christian Standard Version) New Testament which does something no other New Testament does. The biblical text has blue and green color coding to indicate when a biblical saying is either a direct citation from the New Testament (blue) or an allusion to something in the Old Testament (green). This enables the reader to see where a New Testament writer quotes from or draws allusion to something in the Old Testament—the thought world of New Testament writers.

Guy Manuell, The People in Paul’s Letters: A Compendium of Characters. This is a great aid to reading Paul’s letters. Manuell gives a biographical account of every person mentioned by Paul. Some entries are brief (if there’s nothing known of the person), some are extensive (such as Timothy and Titus).

Frank Thielman’s book, Paul, the Apostle of Grace is the new standard for Pauline biography. In the manner of F. F. Bruce’s magisterial, Paul the Apostle of the Heart Set Free, which looks broadly at Paul’s life and times, Thielman has given us a modern, scholarly, and readable biography of Paul. This is not a theology of Paul in the manner of Ridderbos, Vos, Gaffin, or Beale. This is a remarkable effort to consider Paul’s life and ministry from his birth to his death, based upon the mass of available data, and very skillfully woven into a compelling narrative.

Trevin Wax: The Letters of Paul in 30 Days. A great devotional!

Paul Barnett, A Short Book About Paul. A solid and useful introduction to Paul’s life and thought

Music:

(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegret

Riddleblog and Blessed Hope Updates:

• I am pleased to announce that I have a substantial book and an academic essay forthcoming, Lord willing. Both are under contract and should reach publication by the end of 2027 or early 2028. I am very excited about these projects and I’ll tell you more about them later (when I can)

• I am hard at work on the Romans series on the Blessed Hope Podcast. I hope you are enjoying going through Romans as much as I am! There are eleven episodes posted, with about fifteen episodes written. Completing these projects may require a break in podcast releases early in the New Year. We’ll see how this all unfolds

Thinking Out Loud:

• Protestia is in my “X” feed and I must say, glimpsing at it is like passing an auto accident and slowing down to gawk. One of the frequent images from progressive churches is the number of middle age and older women clergy. My guess is that in their off-hours or before they were ordained, many of them are known by their neighbors as “cat ladies,” or a vocal “Karen” who shows up to complain to their HOA board that someone is flying an American flag or wearing a Maga hat while walking their dog through the neighborhood. Those who loved quilting and arts and crafts are now finding/creating liturgical vestments adored by their congregations of a dozen or so seniors and their caregivers, who like the bright colors and attend these churches on Sundays as outings from their residential facilities. These “cleric-ettes” even wear their fuzzy slippers to work! Thanks, Protestia, for reminding us of the absolute folly and soul-risking danger of progressive theology

• When my musings become fantasies, I can only wonder what life in America would be like if we are one people, united by a constitutional Republican government, where the legislative branch actually did its job. Then the fantasy goes away when I’m reminded of our two miserable political parties who rule our congress, trying to “own” each other, and not working together to get important things done at a time when important things really do need to be done

• If the Reformed ever had a “blessings of the animals” ceremony, would cats be included?

• As a Yankees fan I can’t help but take special delight in the fact that both the Red Sox and them cheatin’ Astros were eliminated from the playoffs on the same day. Then the Yankees self-destructed against the Rays. Ugh . . . the ups and downs of being a sports fan

• The title “Heritage American” is now a big deal in some Christian nationalist circles. If anyone has reason to be a Heritage American, I have more. 3x Mayflower descendant on my maternal side (Howland, Tilley, Allerton), my paternal line (Rötlisperger) arrived in PA in 1733. Of my 32 ancestral lines, the most recent one of them to arrive in America was in 1830. So, when asked about my nationality, I am truly an American. I do affirm “Christ is king” but always along with his other two offices (prophet and priest). As to lineage—Swiss (some) and British (mostly). As to criminal record or parking tickets, faultless. But I count it all dung to know I am a member of Christ’s church and am looking forward to the realization of my heavenly citizenship. And just in case one of these “Christian” nationalists becomes president, I do keep my passport current and pray the Swiss will take me back as a refugee

• We can only wonder what Trump’s presidency might have been like had he never opened a “Truth Social” account

• After spending so much time working through Romans 7:14-25, I think I’ll change my personal pronoun to the “wretched man”

• I don’t get the “care emoji.” It is supposed to be a “virtual hug,” but it looks like a cartoon monster, or a face in a bad dream. I’ll bet AI or the CCP will use it for nefarious purposes if not already doing so

• Endnotes are still a tool of the devil. When AI takes over, there will be no footnotes, only endnotes. Let that be a warning to you

Recently Read:

Richard Bell’s recent book, The American Revolution and the Fate of the World (2025), challenges the reader not to think of the Revolutionary War as an isolated conflict between Great Britain and thirteen rebellious colonies. Rather, Bell contends, the American Revolution was an important part of a much larger global conflict, a story which Bell strives to tell.

The book is arranged as a series of vignettes, each of which covers one facet of a much larger war of which the American Revolution was but a part. Each addresses a particular aspect of the conflict in a highly personalized way, centering around a central character who plays an important role in that portion of Bell’s larger story.

Take, for example, the Boston Tea Party—the tea which ended up in Boston Harbor came from China as a consequence of on-going trade wars and colonial aspirations in the Far East between the British, Dutch, and the Portuguese. Bell then takes up the role of the Hessians, who, as paid mercenaries from Prussia, fought for the British in America and elsewhere, with many staying behind in America once the war ended. Their descendants form a significant portion of the modern American populace.

Bell addresses an all-too often overlooked fact that the largest theater of the war was not the Atlantic Seaboard and Britain’s American colonies, but the Western frontier—everything west of the Berkshires and Appalachians. This Western territory amounted to a 3,000 mile long front, which had recently been controlled by the French (who were defeated in the French and Indian Wars), and now with the Spanish claiming a significant portion of Florida and the Mississippi valley (including New Orleans and territory as far north as Illinois). The Spanish, at war with Britain and allied with France, supplied much in the way of arms and gunpowder to the Patriots through all sorts of back channel means. There were numerous long forgotten battles and skirmishes in this Western region, which was filled with many unhappy native Americans betrayed by endless broken promises from the French, British, and the fledgling Americans.

Bell directs the reader’s attention to the French efforts to oust the British from their Caribbean holdings, which were far more important and lucrative to the British (sugar, rum, molasses, and tobacco), than goods imported to and from the colonies (lumber, cotton, tobacco). A massive French fleet under deGrasse fought the British navy to a draw at the hugely important but largely forgotten naval Battle of the Capes (or the Battle of the Chesapeake) and successfully deposited Rochambeau and his soldiers in Virginia. This was in preparation to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown. But that same French fleet was thoroughly defeated shortly after by His Majesty’s superior navy in the Caribbean. England lost America, but retained its vital interests elsewhere. And while all of that was going on, Spain made an all-out effort to take the fortress of Gibraltar back from the British, but failed miserably. During this same period, England struggled to retain the crown jewel of its colonial empire, India, overcoming Dutch and French efforts to ally themselves with indigenous groups seeking to throw off their British overlords. And, lest we forget, the British were establishing yet another new colonial entity while war was raging globally—the vast penal colony of Australia.

In the end, England lost its thirteen American colonies to independence and Florida to Spain—a huge set back. Yet, at the same time, King George retained Canada, the British holdings in the Caribbean, the fortress of Gibraltar which controlled the entrance to the Mediterranean, its crown jewel of India, and its trade routes to and from China, while at the same time decimating the French and Spanish navies and thereby defeating its two principle European foes. This was indeed a time of global warfare.

Bell’s book is an interesting read on an important but overlooked topic. You’ll enjoy it, as I did.

Recommended Links:

Recovering the Presbyterian Prayer Book

All of B. B. Warfield’s works now downloadable at Monergism, in an updated version

Here are a couple of important on-line resources to check out: Reformed Faith and Practice and Themelios

This is going to become an important issue across the country—doctrinal discrimination and church building permits

Ever wonder why things in the Middle East are the way they are? Then listen to this School of War episode: Simon Sebag Montefiore on the Middle East. Outstanding!

Fulton Sheen—A papal showman and the first TV evangelist

Just for Fun:

My favorite new sport

Fake AI pictures of dangerous animals terrorizing your community is now a thing. Fake crocs and vipers are the latest

My childhood suspicions about vegetables are confirmed

Speaking of crocs, what could possibly go wrong here?

Didn’t ZZ Top write a song about this? Arrested for Driving While Blind?

Now this is really creepy

Legionnaires disease at Yankee Stadium? Must be a CCP or a Red Sox plot

Speaking of bacterial disease, are these things not incubators for all kinds of the bad stuff?

That renowned expert on eschatology, J. D. Vance, says “the Antichrist is among us!” Hmmm . . . I’ll leave it at that . . .

Putin may not be able to push “wafer thin” Mr. Creosote out a window, so he better get a bucket

There are some weird proclivities out there—this used to be a high school insult to belittle the nerdy new kid, but, apparently, he grew up

McDonalds might be more of a threat than AI or flock cameras

I hope my wife doesn't see this. She’ll set one up for me in the backyard

Previous Musings:

Video:

AI is a complicated and difficult subject. Here’s the Biden administration’s AI Czar expert to explain it to us in 40 seconds.

John Wesley’s published journals run to four volumes with an opening entry dated October 14, 1735, with his final entry recorded on Sunday, October 24, 1790.

Wesley’s conversion account in 1738 is widely known. Here’s how I describe it in Season Five, Episode One, of my Blessed Hope Podcast deep dive into Romans:

Like Luther, John Wesley was yet another deeply troubled man. For ten years Wesley struggled to live out the demands of the Ten Commandments but finally confessed that he had not obtained freedom from sin, nor the witness of the Spirit, because he sought to gain all of these things through his own futile efforts, rather than through faith in Christ.

Exhausted and out of answers, he attended a meeting of the Moravian Brethren at Aldersgate street in London. It was there that Wesley heard the Preface from Luther's Commentary on Romans being read aloud. Wesley recalled, “I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt that I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation.” [1]

I lamented that, “it is too bad that Wesley’s mind was not enlightened when his heart was warmed because he would later go on to reject much of the contents of Luther’s commentary as Wesley’s theology eventually sank back into the semi-Pelagianism of the Middle Ages.”

The degree to which Wesley would later reject Luther becomes apparent in Wesley’s journal entry for Monday June 15, 1741:

I set out for London, and read over in the way that celebrated book, Martin Luther's comment on the Epistle to the Galatians. I was utterly ashamed. How have I esteemed this book, only because I heard it so commended by others; or at best, because I had read some excellent sentences occasionally quoted from it. But what shall I say now, I judge for myself. Now I see with my own eyes? Why, not only that the author makes nothing out, clears up not one considerable difficulty, that he is quite shallow in his remarks on many passages, and muddy and confused almost on all; but that he is deeply tinctured with Mysticism throughout, and hence often dangerously wrong. Two instances, only one or two points--How does he (almost in the words of Tauler), decry reason, right or wrong, as an irreconcilable enemy to the Gospel of Christ? Whereas, what is reason (the faculty so called), but the power of apprehending, judging, and discoursing? Which power is no more to be condemned in the gross than seeing, hearing, or feeling. Again, how blasphemously does he speak of good works and of the Law of God, constantly coupling the Law with sin, death, hell, or the devil; and teaching that Christ delivers us from them all alike. Whereas it can no more be proved by Scripture that Christ delivers us from the Law of God than that he delivers us from holiness or heaven. Here I apprehend, is the real spring of the grand error of the Moravians. They follow Luther, for better, for worse. Hence their "no works," "no law," "no commandments." But who art thou that "speakest evil of the law, and judgest the law?"

Just four years after being “strangely warmed,” Wesley now confesses to being “utterly ashamed” for previously speaking and thinking highly of Luther. It is unfortunate that as early as 1741, Wesley so badly misunderstood (best case) or rejected Luther’s theology (worst case) regarding several critical doctrines. In fact, by the time the Methodist Minutes were published (at some point after 1744), Wesley’s theology was now thoroughly couched in Semi-Pelagian terms, with hints of a full-blown Pelagianism lying just beneath the surface of the discussion recorded in the minutes. On this point, see my prior post, Wesley’s take on election and human obedience.

When Wesley charges Luther with mysticism, he is is making reference to Luther’s negative and at times hyperbolic comments about reason found throughout Luther’s Galatian commentary. Wesley assumed that Luther had jettisoned reason for some form of mysticism which Luther had picked up from the German mystic Tauler. What Wesley fails to understand is that while Luther loudly rejected the magisterial use of reason—reason could discover truth about God apart from revelation, with Luther calling such use of reason, the “devil’s whore”—Luther was no mystic. Elsewhere Luther affirmed the orthodox opinion that reason functions in a ministerial sense, enabling us to understand the Scriptures and distinguish truth from error. Wesley, on the other hand, seems not to know or understand the distinction.

It is also clear that Wesley does not grasp Luther’s various uses of the law as expressed by Luther in his Galatians commentary. Likely due to Luther’s combative style, Wesley completely misses Luther’s main point when the Reformer echoes Paul’s words in Galatians 2:16. Luther was adamant that good works cannot justify, but faith in Christ alone does. Yes, Luther uses some rather choice language directed at Rome in this regard to which Wesley obviously took offense, or flat out misunderstood Luther’s point.

Luther’s views on the three uses of the law are crystal clear, as set forth in his Small Catechism. Luther writes:

First, the Law helps to control violent outbursts of sin and keeps order in the world (a curb).

Second, the Law accuses us and shows us our sin (a mirror).

Third, the Law teaches us Christians what we should and should not do to live a God-pleasing life (a guide).  The power to live according to the Law comes from the Gospel.”

That Wesley finds Luther’s distinction between the law and the gospel so unintelligible and problematic exposes deeper issues. No one doubts Wesley’s zeal for proclaiming the gospel to which much of his preaching attests. But Wesley’s evangelical impulses are badly undermined by a theology which defaults to a self-declared Arminianism, and which in actuality is but a hair’s breadth from the errors of Pelagius. Such a theology will indeed feel shame when encountering Luther and sadly, leave people in the same condition Wesley was in before being strangely warmed at Aldersgate in 1738.

_____________________________________

[1] The Works of John Wesley, Third Edition, Complete and Unabridged, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Reprint Edition, 1979), 315-316.

Who Said That?

I can fill a church speaking on Revelation and empty it speaking on Romans

Leave your answer/guess in the comments section below. Please, no Google or ChatGP searches!

False Teachers Have Arrived

In his first epistle, John is defending the doctrine that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh against a group of false teachers who have departed from the truth by teaching that Jesus was not a flesh and blood Savior, but a deity who merely appeared in the form of a human. John calls this teaching–which is known to us today as the heresy of docetism–the spirit of antichrist (2 John 1:7). For the apostle, Christianity is not a religion in which one learns a set of secret principles revealed to a few enlightened individuals who have managed to gain insight into the “real” teaching of Jesus. For John, Christianity is a religion grounded in the historical work of a flesh and blood Savior (Jesus Christ) whom John has heard preach, whom John witnessed perform miracles, and whom John even touched with his own hands.

To deny that Jesus is truly human is to deny the truth of Christianity. Given the importance of this point, John once again returns to a discussion of the nature of the Christian truth claim, and warns his readers yet again of false teachers and antichrists, who will inevitably come and attempt to deceive God’s people. But John does more than merely warn us about these false teachers, he gives us a test to determine whether or not someone has imbibed from the Gnostic heresy–“does a teacher confess that Jesus is God in human flesh?”

Yet Another Warning

As we have been working our way through John’s epistles, we now come to the fourth chapter of 1 John. John is returning to issues in chapter 4 which he’s already addressed in the first three chapters. John likely does this for the sake of emphasis. In chapter two John had emphasized the need for Christians to obey God’s commandments, to reject worldliness (the non-Christian way of thinking and doing), and to heed his warning about the presence of many antichrists in the age in which we now live.

In chapter three, John repeats these themes while emphasizing different aspects of them. For example, not only must God’s people strive to obey his commandments, we are no longer to be characterized by the practice of sin. Furthermore, Christians will strive to love their brothers and sisters in Christ, while rejecting the murderous ways of Cain, who is the epitome of worldliness, and whose indifference toward God (i.e., his produce offering) and hatred of his brother Abel (whom he killed) prefigures those whom John describes as antichrists.

These false teachers, says John, deny that Jesus is God in the flesh. They seek out “esoteric,” secret truths about God, and they deceive themselves into thinking that they have somehow risen above sin. This explains their indifference to God’s commandments and their lack of love for both God and his people. They may claim to have gained “wisdom,” but John has repeatedly exposed them to be theologically clueless, which is a very serious and dangerous place to be.

Spiritual Darkness and the Appearance of Antichrist

In chapter two, John tells us that the difference between these two groups (Christians and those taken in by the false teachers) is as plain as the difference between light and darkness. In chapter three, John says the contrast between the two groups is apparent in the fact that Christians struggle against sin, while the proto-Gnostics do not. Now, as we make our way into chapter four, John stresses that the contrast is also made plain through someone’s confession about Christ. In this case, the truth claim is very specific. “Is Jesus God manifest in the flesh, or is he not?”

Recall that in verses 18-25 of chapter two, John introduced the figure of antichrist. As we saw when we worked through that portion of this epistle, according to John, many antichrists have already come. In 1 John 2:18-22, the apostle writes:

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.”

If an antichrist is someone who proclaims a message which denies that Jesus is the Christ (God manifest in the flesh), and if the very presence of these antichrists is characteristic of the last hour (the final period of human history), then the conclusion we must reach is fairly obvious. The final period in human history began with Christ’s ascension into heaven. We live in that same period of redemptive history as did John’s original audience. And just as the Christians in Ephesus (to whom John is writing) did combat with these antichrists, so must we. And while too many of our contemporaries have interpreted John’s message through the distorted lens of modern dispensationalism–antichrist is the one who makes a peace treaty with Israel at the start of the seven-year tribulation period and will attempt to brand everyone with the mark of the beast, the mysterious 666–John’s test for the presence of an antichrist is rather different. What does someone confess about Jesus Christ? Do they confess that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh? Or do they claim that Jesus is God who merely took the form of a man (like someone putting on a costume and playing a role) but was not truly human (with real flesh and blood).

To put it another way, Christianity is founded upon a particular set of historical facts. Did God truly take to himself a true human nature in the person of Jesus of Nazareth? Did that same Jesus, who was true and eternal God and true man, suffer and die for our sins, offering up a propitiatory sacrifice which turns aside God’s wrath toward our sins? Did that same Jesus rise bodily again from the dead and ascend into heaven where he presently intercedes for us as our advocate with the Father? If he did, then Christianity is true whether someone believes it or not. If he didn’t, then Christianity is false, no matter how many Christians believe it to be true.

Jesus Is God Manifest in the Flesh

As we move in chapter four, John’s primary point is that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. This fact explains why John is so opposed to those teachers who deny that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. Their denial not only flies in the face of what John knows to be true– “I saw, I heard, I touched”–but this destroys the foundation of the gospel. If Jesus is not truly human, then how can he save those of Adam’s race who have fallen into sin? A flesh and blood Jesus can be punished for us, in our place, because he is one of us. A phantom Jesus cannot bear the guilt of our sins in his flesh, since he has no true human nature and therefore cannot be punished for our sins.

You’ve heard the philosophical parlor game question, “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” It is the same thing with those who claim that all religions fall into the realm of emotion, feeling, and subjectivity, so that Christianity is just another expression of a person’s fear and uncertainty of the world around them. If people are afraid, they invent a God to help them cope. People may prefer Christianity to other religions, or they may be Christians because they were born into a Christian family. Or, they may even be Christians for a whole host of personal reasons. But because in their minds religion is purely subjective, then, there is no compelling reason to believe it other than personal opinion.

On the contrary, John declares that Christianity is founded upon the entrance of the eternal God into history in a particular person–Jesus of Nazareth. Those who deny this truth claim in the name of a phantom Jesus are antichrists. Those who deny this claim deny the truth, and they cannot be Christians no matter how pious they may be. By the way, the tree makes a noise when it falls. And if Jesus rose from the dead as God in human flesh, then Christianity is true whether anyone was there to see it or not. Yet, God saw fit to give us witnesses of Christ’s resurrection. Paul even says that in additional to those in the apostolic circle, over five hundred witnesses at one time saw Jesus alive after his resurrection.

Those Who Are Born from Above Will Do Good Works

If it is vital for us to understand the indicative and imperative moods to understand John’s teaching about the relationship between being born again (the indicative) and the necessity of good works (the imperative), it is also vital for us to understand that John is making a truth claim when he speaks about Christ’s incarnation. Those who have been born again, those for whom Christ has died, and those for whom Christ presently intercedes, will do good works. There is a cause and effect relationship here. Likewise, those who believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh must definitively reject any teaching that conflicts with this truth. Darkness is not only moral or ethical, it is also theological. Furthermore, they must reject (as a Christian) anyone who teaches anything contrary to the doctrine taught by the apostles who were witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus.

John has warned those in Ephesus about the presence of many antichrists “who went out from us because they were not of us” (1 John 2:19). As we have seen, the apostle is warning us about these antichrists as well. So, just as he has repeated his points about the necessity of obedience to the commandments, the warning about worldliness, and the need to love our brothers and sisters, so too John reminds us that Christianity is grounded upon a truth claim, and that God’s people must oppose all those who deny the truth that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. Christians must do combat with the spirit of antichrist.

So, with that bit of background, we turn to our text, 1 John 4:1-6, where John returns to the subject of antichrist as well as giving us a test by which we can determine who is doing the work of antichrist and who is not.

Another Gospel and Another Jesus

Although he’s writing perhaps as much as thirty years earlier than John, in 2 Corinthians 11, the Apostle Paul describes another serious situation facing the church in Corinth in the late fifties of the first century. Beginning in verse 3, Paul warns

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. . . . And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

According to Paul, largely through the efforts of Satan, who is the author of lies, there will be false teachers who come and preach a different gospel. And that false gospel centers in what Paul calls “another Jesus” and a “different spirit.”

Apparently, John sees a similar crisis facing the church in Asia Minor. In verse 1 of chapter 4, John seeks to warn his readers, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” In Galatia, Paul was dealing with Judaizers–Jews who had come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but who were insisting that Gentiles undergo circumcision in order to be justified. In Corinth, Paul was dealing with certain individuals whom Paul calls “super-apostles.” These were men who were masquerading as ministers of the gospel, and who were using their office as an excuse to engage in all kinds of sinful behavior as well as to promote a false gospel. Likewise, John calls upon his beloved in Ephesus to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” It happened in Galatia. It happened in Corinth. It happened in Ephesus. It can certainly happen anywhere in the modern world.

The True Test of a Prophet

When John sets out his test for true prophets–those who properly preach about Christ–in many ways, his words echo the theological test required of God’s prophets as set forth by Moses in Deuteronomy 13:1-5.13:

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Notice carefully, that the test is not the performance of signs and wonders, but faithfulness to prior revelation from God. In fact, in 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, Paul gives us this warning about the Man of Sin (who may be the final culmination of John’s series of antichrists).

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Signs and wonders offer cover to false teachers. But false teachers can never hide behind the truth–hypocrites maybe, false teachers, never.

A New Religion Is Emerging – Gnosticism

In John’s context in Ephesus, the issue is an early form of Gnosticism which held that certain enlightened teachers had gained “knowledge.” This knowledge was tied to secret teachings which were not recorded in the New Testament, but which circulated independently among those interested in the “real truth.” This particular body of knowledge held that Jesus was not God manifest in the flesh, but God merely appearing in human form. John describes how such men left the church once they became enlightened. And having left the church (gone out into the world) they are now to be classified as “false prophets.” These false prophets are not to be believed and their message is to be tested. They have “another spirit” (to use Paul’s terms), which John now describes as the “spirit of antichrist.”

John’s test to determine whether or not these men possess the Spirit of God is quite simple. John spells it out for his readers in verses 2-3a. “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” While many, no doubt, would expect God to confirm his prophets through some miraculous means, the fact is, he uses a much less spectacular method–the truth of the message, i.e., the gospel which had been preached by the disciples from the beginning.

In 1 John 3:24, John told his readers that those who are Christ’s (who have been born again, for whom Christ has died, and for whom he intercedes) are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Since there is only one Holy Spirit, when John mentions other “spirits” he is referring to those who claim to be speaking in the “Spirit” but who are actually speaking falsehoods in the name of the Spirit. This would be especially relevant in the context in which John finds himself–proto-Gnostics claiming to have knowledge, but who in actuality know nothing about Jesus or the Spirit.

Because false teachers claim the authority of the Holy Spirit, believers need to test whether or not those who preach in the name of Christ are preaching the truth. The proof is found in the content of the preaching. Does the preacher proclaim that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh? If he does, then the Spirit of God is at work in and through his preaching. If someone who claims to have knowledge, and claims to be speaking “in the spirit,” but then denies that Jesus is God in the flesh, then that teacher is not from God, no matter how many miracles they may perform, no matter what secrets they may claim to know, or no matter how pious they may be.

The Spirit of Antichrist Has Already Come

John makes it perfectly clear that this “spirit” which denies Christ’s human nature is not the Holy Spirit, but the “spirit of antichrist.” As the apostle writes in the last part of verse 3, “This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.” In the final days of his messianic mission, Jesus did indeed warn his disciples about the presence of false teachers. In the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:3-6), Jesus answers a very insightful question from his disciples.

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, `Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?’ And Jesus answered them, `See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.

Toward the end of the discourse, Jesus goes on to say in verse 23,

Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.

The proof is not in the signs and wonders, but in the faithfulness of the doctrine to that which Christ and his apostles have already revealed.

Not “If” But “When”

As John now reminds the Ephesian Christians, the presence of false teachers should not come as a surprise. Jesus warned his disciples about false teachers, and John is echoing that warning, only directing it against these proto-Gnostics in Ephesus. The spirit of antichrist is already in the world when John writes, and the spirit of antichrist remains in the world even now. In fact, it is not hard to identify those who do the work of antichrist. There is one question which gets to the root of the issue–what do these teachers confess about Jesus? Is he God in human flesh?

Despite the gravity of John’s warning, Christians need not fear false teachers or these antichrists. In verse 4, John reminds his readers, “Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.” The word “antichrist” is so loaded in our day that we have a hard time hearing it in connection with heresy as John’s original audience did. Even then, the mention of foes who attempt to negate everything that the apostles have proclaimed about the Jesus whom they saw, heard, and touched, probably prompted a fair bit of fear in the congregations.

Yes, John is writing to warn his reader about the danger of false teaching, and he is certainly writing to give Christians a simple test to determine who is an antichrist. But he also writes to comfort those who might panic at the news that false teachers and false doctrine arising in the church is an inevitability. We need not be afraid of such people because they are easy to overcome. Truth is to a false teacher what kryptonite is to Superman.

John reminds his reader of one very important fact–“dear children, you are from God!” More than that, greater is he who indwells you (the Holy Spirit) than that spirit which is in the world (the spirit of antichrist). And since you have been born again, you know the truth. You have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This is why you have not been taken in by the false teachers. As John puts it, “you have overcome them.” The language here is that of spiritual combat and of a decisive victory.[1] Those who have held to the truth have not been taken in (deceived) by those who have attempted to lure them away from Christ through their false teaching and secret knowledge.

The implication is that God’s dear children and John’s beloved have heard the truth (the apostolic preaching of the gospel), they have believed in the Christ who is the content of that preaching, and they have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They know not to believe the lies coming those who have departed from the faith and who now claim to have gained insight into the secret teachings of Jesus. The Ephesian Christians have already decisively overcome the deceivers. They have done so by holding fast to the truth.

But John knows full well that in one sense the false teachers have a big edge–while they may misrepresent the apostle’s teaching about Jesus, since they speak the language of the world, John knows they’ll always gain a hearing. There will be plenty of itching ears who want to learn their “insights.” As John puts it in verse 5, “They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.” Human nature, being what it is (sinful), there’s something in many of us that is attracted to the kinds of religious secrets and insights taught by these proto-Gnostics. We’ve already heard the gospel. We already know the commandments. We want to move on from that old stuff to the new teaching which tickles our ears. We want to know the hidden secrets of Christianity so that we can control our destinies and we can find people who will tell us what we want to hear.

But John tells us not to be like those who are “of the world,” and who listen to the spirit of antichrist, which is in the world already. “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” John’s standard is pretty basic. If we have believed the gospel, we are from God. If we are from God we listen for Christ’s voice in his word, not in the secrets which some claim to have grasped, and which they are all too happy to tell us. These proto-Gnostics are not interested in the word of the gospel which gives us life. That’s old news to them. Their lack of interest in the gospel and their denial that Jesus is the eternal son of God manifest in the flesh is the sure sign to us that someone is not from God. If people don’t love the truth, they’ll flock to error like a moth to a flame. And that is how we are to discern truth from error.

The Take Away

As we see throughout John’s first letter, John’s focus falls upon the truth of the gospel which had already been preached to the churches and which is the standard by which we are to judge everything we hear from those who preach and who teach. Never forget that the Christian faith is a truth claim, grounded in the person and work of Christ. And because it is a truth claim grounded in history, Christianity is not grounded in my experience, my preferences, my upbringing, or my culture. John directs us to the message of what Jesus did as the word manifest in the flesh as the weapon to oppose the spirit of antichrist. The proof is in the doctrine–does what someone teaches and confesses about Christ comport with the Scriptures, the revelation given us by Jesus and his apostles? And this doctrine does not change, nor does it need to be supplemented by additional revelation.

In fact, the importance and centrality of our confession about Jesus is why, historically, Christian worship has included the recitation of the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed (both of which summarize the Bible’s teaching about the basics of our faith). Reciting the creed is the equivalent of a Jew reciting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). When we recite these creeds, we are confessing the very thing John sets forth as the key test for truth. Who is Jesus and what did he come to do? When we recite the creeds, we are waging war on the spirit of antichrist. So, next time we recite the creed, remember that you are not only confessing Christ as God manifest in the flesh, you are opposing the spirit of antichrist.

I’ve made this point before, but since John makes it again, so will I. You cannot overcome error if you don’t know the truth. John is warning us that heretics will come–it is not a matter of “if” but when. And if you don’t know the truth, you (and your families) are defenseless in the face of false teaching. John reminds his readers to go back to the truth they had heard from the beginning, and then measure everything they heard against that teaching.

The application for us is to know our Bibles and to make full use of our catechism. If you are not in the word, and studying the catechism, the degree to which you neglect to do this is the degree to which you will be defenseless against that foe who is sure to come. Remember, heretics never come and announce “I’m a heretic.” They always use some measure of truth to smuggle in their error. You don’t circulate $3.00 bills with purple ink and Mickey Mouse’s face and expect people to fall for your ruse. The counterfeit has to look like the original. But if you don’t know the original, you’ll fall victim to the counterfeit. There is another Christ, another gospel, and another spirit. And if you know the truth and put these claims to the test, John says you’ll decisively defeat the false teachers.

Since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, he always will point us to that Savior who brought us from death to life, who turned aside God’s wrath, and who even now intercedes for us before the Father. The Spirit of truth will always direct us to that Christ who is the word manifest in the flesh. The Spirit of truth will never lead us away from the true Jesus to a Jesus who is but a mere ghost. The Spirit of truth will never reveal to someone secrets not already revealed in God’s word. The test for truth is the doctrine. This is how we tell truth from error.

__________________________________

[1] Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 226.

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again not only can forfeit justifying faith as well as grace and salvation totally and to the end, but also in actual fact do often forfeit them and are lost forever.

For this opinion nullifies the very grace of justification and regeneration as well as the continual preservation by Christ, contrary to the plain words of the apostle Paul: “If Christ died for us while we were still sinners, we will therefore much more be saved from God’s wrath through him, since we have now been justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:8–9); and contrary to the apostle John: “No one who is born of God is intent on sin, because God’s seed remains in him, nor can he sin, because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9); also contrary to the words of Jesus Christ: “I give eternal life to my sheep, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28–29).

________________________________________

The issue here is, “Can someone who genuinely comes to faith in Christ and is declared righteous (justified) then cease to believe and lose their righteous standing?” The Arminian assumption is “yes.” Those who are truly regenerate and, at a point in time, do possess true faith and are justified can subsequently cease to believe and lose both regeneration and justification. To put it another way, according to Arminianism/semi-Pelagianism, if regeneration results from a human action (faith and repentance), then it is possible to cease believing and lose both regeneration and justification. If salvation is grounded in human freedom, not the grace and mercy of God, then perseverance depends upon human willing as well.

As the 3rd Rejection makes clear, the Arminian error is in direct conflict with Christ’s ongoing priestly, kingly, and prophetic work on behalf of those chosen by the Father, granted the new birth by the Holy Spirit, and who then come to faith. As we have seen, Jesus presently intercedes on behalf of the elect, praying for them and ensuring that they do indeed persevere to the end—as definitively stated in John 10:28–29. Can Jesus’s prayers on behalf of the elect go unanswered? Of course not. The justified persevere because Christ preserves them.

It is important to distinguish the error rejected here from apostasy—someone who falls away from their profession of faith. The Arminian error assumes that a passage like Hebrews 6:4–6 refers to a genuine Christian who loses their salvation when, in fact, the passage actually refers to someone who never possessed salvation.

The apostate of Hebrews 6 is a professing Christian—and, in the context of that epistle, was likely a Jew who renounced their Christian profession to return to Judaism. Such a person possessed what is known as historical or temporary faith. There are indeed people in our churches who profess faith in Christ, who are baptized, and who, for a time, demonstrate Christian affections and manifest good works. But such people do not persevere in faith to the end. This is how they reveal that they are not—and never were—numbered among the elect: they fall away. They have never truly trusted in Christ and are not beneficiaries of his ongoing intercessory work. Such people can and do commit apostasy.

The New Testament warns us about such people in 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”

Episode Synopsis:

Gentiles had a difficult time understanding why Jews would circumcise their male children. There was no Gentile heritage or memory of Abraham. Further complicating the situation was the fact that, among Jews in Rome—as with Jews across the Greco-Roman world—circumcision was understood to be a meritorious act. Those who were circumcised were numbered among the people of God, and those who were not were not. Imagine the difficulty of converting from Gentile paganism to Judaism and then having to undergo a very painful surgery in a very delicate place. Proselytes not only needed to embrace monotheism, embrace Jewish feasts and ceremonial washings, follow the dietary laws, and obey the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), but also undergo circumcision as adults.

But just as Paul challenged the Galatian Judaizers—the covenant God made with Moses at Mount Sinai was not to be confused with the gracious covenant God made with Abraham—so too the true meaning of circumcision was not found in the cutting of flesh. The cutting of flesh was an outward sign of the cutting of the heart—a way to speak of faith in Jesus Christ. In Romans 2:17–29, Paul is not only correcting the Jewish misunderstanding of circumcision—a serious error in its own right—but also letting Jewish Christians know that uncircumcised Gentiles could be numbered among the people of God and become true children of Abraham without undergoing circumcision.

Paul’s discussion of circumcision (verses 25–29) flows out of his efforts to take the Jews to task for their hypocrisy in verses 17–24. The Jews demand certain behavior of others—stop stealing, stop committing adultery, stop robbing temples. But many Jews were doing the same things themselves. The Jews are supposed to instruct those who live in ignorance and walk in darkness—the Gentiles. They were to show them that truth is found in the law of Moses, the very embodiment of God’s will. But instead of leading and teaching the blind and foolish Gentiles, the Jews commit the very same sins themselves. Imagine the blatant hypocrisy of insisting upon something permanent like circumcision, all the while committing the same sins that you insist the person about to submit to the procedure is supposed to stop doing.

This leads to one of the most tragic lines in the whole of the New Testament (verse 24): “For, as it is written, `The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’”

Show Notes:

It was a routine session, thankfully. No crows, helicopters, drones, airplanes (Fullerton or LAX), neighbor’s air conditioning, etc., etc. Makes editing much easier.

I’m getting good feedback on the shorter episodes (around 40 minutes).

Recommended Resources:

Select Resources for the Study of Romans

R. S. Clark on circumcison as a sign of regeneration

Batzig on circumcision as a sign of the covenant

Batzig on the circmcision of Christ

Music:

(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegret

As mentioned in the previous installments, Warfield’s extensive “Review” of four of Evelyn Underhill’s books was published in the 1914 Princeton Theological Review, (105–123). Underhill’s works were gaining popularity at the time, the reason for Warfield’s detailed and critical response. Many of her books remain in print today, and she still has a following despite her death over eighty years ago (1941). Her “Christianized” form of mysticism (actually pantheism) still finds an audience among those who identify as “spiritual but not religious,” a phenomenon currently being addressed by Michael Horton’s three volume series on the subject.

In Part One, I took up Warfield’s less than favorable review of Evelyn Underhill’s works championing a so-called “Christian” mysticism—a subjective religious impulse grounded in ecstatic experience and not based upon the written word of God. In Part Two, Warfield addresses her notion of God as the “Absolute,” which, as we noted, has much in common with the inscription on the infamous Athenian altar dedicated to an “unknown god,” mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:23. A better term for the “religiosity of the human spirit,” might just be “the flesh,” as identified by Paul in Romans 8:5-8.

In Part Three, The Lion of Princeton presses her on matters of definition—a problem often associated with mystical religious experience, because such experience is difficult to put into explanatory words. But Christianity is essentially a religion of objective truth (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 2 Corinthians 5:19) revealed in revelatory speech and acts, not in subjective experience. As noted, the heart should follow the mind, not skip over it into a mystical and subjective abyss divorced from those historical events upon which Christianity is based.

Warfield’s in-depth review of Underhill’s work is important for us to consider because mysticism always seems to resurface in times of religious confusion because its gives people a way to unite through shared mystical experience without any doctrinal commitments—“the heart rules over the head.” Such religious experience exists apart from creeds, objective truth claims, and redemptive history, which provides the foundation for a proper Christian faith, which looks to a very real incarnation, a life lived in perfect obedience to the law of Moses, the shedding of RH-typable blood and an empty tomb. Many of today’s “spiritual but not religious” folk have read or would enjoy the Underhill’s writings.

We pick up where we left off last time. Warfield points out that Underhill mistakes the writings of Plotius and her own pantheizing tendencies with that of “abounding culture,” which, she contends, creates a society which fosters those like her who seek God through direct experience. Warfield corrects her misguided assumption.

Miss Underhill would have us believe that Mysticism appears always in the train of great periods of abounding culture; it is the consummate flower of human culture. We think it truer to say that it appears always in the train of periods of the dominance of a Pantheizing philosophy: it is the effect in the religious mind of prevalent Pantheizing thought. . . . Miss Underhill allows (though this is far from all that she allows) that the Mystics at least speak the language of Plotinus. So true is this, that even she, though set upon cleansing the idea of Mysticism from the smudge of Pantheism, yet herself speaks the language of Plotinus, if indeed she stops with that. Though she may on occasion therefore insist that in his achieved “union with the Absolute,” the Mystic does not lose his identity in God, but “in the Mystic this union is conscious, personal thought”; and even indeed that what the Mystic “calls ‘Union with God’ is only his utter identification with the interests of the spiritual life”—she naturally cannot maintain this point of view, and everywhere lapses into language with quite other implications. . . . [I]t is of the very essence of Mysticism to maintain the immediate presence of the divine in man, needing only to be recognized and felt; and it is therefore that it is by the way of “contemplation” that the Mystic bids us seek and find God. Miss Underhill herself tells us that “the whole claim of the Mystics ultimately depends on man’s possession of pure being in ‘the spark of the soul’” “pure being” being but a synonym for the Absolute.

Notice, for Underhill, there is no mediated encounter with the Holy God. She seeks something quite apart from the intercessory work of Jesus Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit as described in Romans 8:14-17. According to Underhill, we can encounter the immediate presence of the Absolute, who is “pure being.” Recall that Isaiah had an encounter with the Lord (Isaiah 6:1-13), so did Paul (Acts 9:1-16), as did John (Revelation 4-6). But these were certainly not the sort of experiences sought and endorsed by Miss Underhill. Isaiah, Paul, and John were immediately aware of their own sin and unworthiness and were filled with dread and terror. Union with the God of the Bible requires mediation, lest we be consumed, “for our God is a consuming fire,” (Hebrews 12:29).

Although you would think things could not get worse—they do, and quickly in fact. The mystic consciousness soon leads one to become aware of one’s own deity apart from which, no union is possible.

That in this “ineffable experience” called “the act of union,” something more is achieved than merely the identification of ourselves “with the interests of the spiritual life”—something very much like the identification of ourselves with God—emerges from such statements as the following: “All pleasurable and exalted states of Mystic consciousness in which the sense of I-hood persists, in which there is a loving and joyous relation between the Absolute as object and the self as subject, fall under the head of Illumination.” “The real distinction between the Illuminative and the Unitive life is that in Illumination the individuality of the subject—however profound his spiritual consciousness, however close his communion with the Infinite—remains separate and intact.”

As Warfield explains, the “I-hood” may remain,”separate and intact.” But in the following, it becomes clear that this expected “close communion with the Absolute,” leads to the following result—a transmutation, a veritable “deification” of the self. This may be the high point for the mystic, but is the low point of biblical expectation. In fact, seeking such requires repentance.

That the achievement of this union with the Absolute should be represented by some Mystics at least as “deification” can occasion no surprise. These Mystics certainly do not bate their breath when they speak of it: Miss Underhill herself calls their language with respect to it “blunt and positive.” “If we are to allow,” she writes, however, “that the Mystics have ever attained the object of their quest, I think we must also allow that such attainment involves the transmutation of the self to that state which they call, for want of exact language, ‘deified.’ The necessity of such transmutation is an implicit of their first position: the law that ‘we behold that which we are, and are that which we behold.’ Eckhart, in whom the language of deification assumes its most extreme form, justifies it upon this necessity. ‘If,’ he says, ‘I am to know God directly, I must become completely He and He I: so that this He and this I become and are one I.’”

John Lenon’s famous line from the Walrus comes to mind—“I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together,” summing up Underhill’s theology quite well. Had Warfield lived into the age of the Beatles, my guess is that he would have cited this line in response. Experience of the Absolute, leads to union with the Absolute. This is nothing less than self-deification. The mystic thinks this a goal—the orthodox Christian sees it as blasphemy. There is a load echo here from Genesis 3:5, the challenge to Eve offered by the serpent. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Eve embraced it, so has Underhill.

As Warfield explains, this is where a pantheistic mysticism ultimately takes us.

“The achievement of reality, and deification,” says Miss Underhill, “are then one and the same thing: necessarily so, since we know that only the divine is the real.” Accordingly “the Mystic Way” begins “by the awakening within the self of a new and embryonic consciousness; a consciousness of divine reality, as opposed to the illusory sense-world in which she was immersed.” There is nothing more fundamental to the whole Mystical consciousness than the conviction that what we shall see when we retreat into the “cell of self-knowledge” is just that Reality which stands to it for God.

A retreat into the “cell of self-knowledge” is in reality a sort of prison from the real world in which we live. Paul describes this as a darkened understanding (Ephesians 4:18-19). God can become whatever we think or want him to be—which make us his equal if not his superior.

Warfield is quick to point out that the mystic beats a quick retreat from the deifying logic of their position, but the mystic cannot truly escape the trap of their own making.

It is easy to point out that these same Mystics nevertheless protest that by this transmutation the creature does not really become God; and that others prefer the figure of marriage with God to that of deification to express the “mystic union” which they seek in common. But this is only to say that they are Christians as well as Mystics, and that their Christianity modifies their Mysticism: it does not throw doubt upon but rather establishes the fact that the truly—unmodified—Mystical doctrine involves the identification of the creature with the deity. And that for a much deeper reason than the merely epistemological one pointed out by Miss Underhill in the passage just quoted from her).

Nevertheless, the mystic sees themselves as a chip off the divine block.

“What constitutes the main distinction between mysticism and other piety is that the ordinary pious man has above everything an eye for that which distinguishes him from God: for his insignificance in contrast with God’s greatness, for his finiteness in contrast with God’s infinity and eternity, for his sinfulness in contrast with God’s holiness. In their feeling of this distinction men remain clearly conscious of their humanity and look upon their God as something peculiar, different from themselves. Of this distinguishableness of God, however, the Mystic will know nothing. God is to him indistinguishable as He is incomprehensible, invisible and infinite and therefore all-embracing. No one is in a position to draw a sharp line between humanity and deity; and therefore this line is capable of being crossed and man accordingly can attain this union.” Behind this somewhat negative attitude there lies the positive conviction of the Mystic that there exists in himself a native spark of “pure Being” which is in and of itself divine, and that it is his part to blow this spark into a flame that he may become truly himself in the consciousness that he is really God.

The mystic path leads to an “awakening and embryonic consciousness,” away from a “reality” completely independent of the sensuous world into which God has placed us. The mystic prefers darkness to light where they can find a deity of their own imagining—a deity which looks back at them in the mirror.

“The achievement of reality, and deification,” says Miss Underhill, “are then one and the same thing: necessarily so, since we know that only the divine is the real.” Accordingly “the Mystic Way” begins “by the awakening within the self of a new and embryonic consciousness; a consciousness of divine reality, as opposed to the illusory sense-world in which she was immersed”. There is nothing more fundamental to the whole Mystical consciousness than the conviction that what we shall see when we retreat into the “cell of self-knowledge” is just that Reality which stands to it for God.

To be continued . . .

In his book, the Certainty of Faith (1901), Herman Bavinck writes

. . . there is also a practical side to theology that makes it akin to medicine. The theoretical knowledge of the doctor is doubtlessly very important, but his worth and the worth of his science only comes into its own when he heals people. Similarly, theology must prescribe medicine for the ailments of the soul. It must be able to say how and in what way we can be freed from our guilt, reconciled with God, attain to patience and hope amidst life’s tribulations, and find reason to sing praises in the face of death.

A theology that does not concern itself with these things and only dedicates itself to critical and historical studies is not worthy of the name theology. And a theologian who is acquainted with all the latest issues of his science but who stands speechless at a sickbed and knows no answer to the questions of the lost sinner’s heart isn't worthy of his title and office.

A theology professor once told me that in his student days he was introduced to all sorts of scientific issues, but was never given the answer to one question: How do I get to heaven? Yet, the answer to this question provides the church and theology with their reason for existence. This is what preaching and family visiting are about.

Modern theology, whose achievements we must not underestimate, did not flounder because of the scientific acumen of its enemies. Its impotence became evident in practice. It lost in the pulpit and in family visiting because it had no comfort to offer for either life or death. Not the school but the church, not the seminary but the pulpit, not apologetics but the sickbed and deathbed showed up its poverty.

History and experience show us every day what is most expected from theology: it must nurture our certainty of faith. Otherwise, rather than seek help from an established science that can wax eloquent about illness but which cannot heal, the sick will turn to the first quack who comes along.

An excerpt from “Not Ashamed of the Gospel” Season Five/Episode Five (Romans 1:16-17)

What, then, should we take with us from Romans 1:16-17?

The first thing we need to say is that, like Paul, we must never be ashamed of the gospel. Yes, the cross is a scandalous message. Yes, the cross is foolishness to the Greeks. Unfortunately, in much of American religion (and even in much of evangelicalism), the gospel has become a message about how the holy God makes himself acceptable to self-righteous sinners. While preachers, teachers, and evangelists have every right to be cognizant of the culture and communicate the gospel accordingly, we are never given the right to change the message of the cross to appease that culture.

The power of God is revealed whenever the gospel is preached, not when ministers seek to entertain, strive to be politically relevant, or speak to the whims of the congregation. Until Christ’s church recovers its confidence in the preaching of the cross, we will never see a healthy church, nor witness genuine reformation. Let us sincerely desire and eagerly pray that we may follow Paul’s example and that we, as individual believers and as church members, may never be ashamed of the gospel. For the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe. The preaching of the gospel is the means by which God saves sinners! "The righteous shall live by faith." But how can people come to faith when there is no gospel? As P.T. Forsyth once put it, "We must preach to our age, but woe to us if it is our age which we preach, and only hold up the mirror to the time."

A final point of application is that we need to be very clear about the nature of Paul’s gospel. The words and phrases, and even the prepositions used here, really do matter! When the gospel—the message that Jesus died for our sins and that he was raised for our justification—is preached, God freely bestows a right standing upon all those who renounce their own righteousness and receive what God freely offers to them through faith in Jesus Christ, namely the perfect righteousness of Christ himself. In the gospel, a righteousness from God is revealed to all who believe, whether they be Jew or Gentile!

When this gospel is preached, God demonstrates his power to give life, to create faith, and to deliver all those who trust in Jesus Christ from the wrath to come. In this gospel, a righteousness from God is revealed—a righteousness without which none of us will see heaven. But if we believe God’s promise to save us from the guilt of our sin, God regards us as though we had never sinned and as though we had kept his commandments perfectly. Indeed, "the righteous shall live by faith," and that faith is created through the gospel in which the righteousness of God is revealed.

A familiar message? Yes, but one we need to hear over and over again.

Light and Darkness

In the first two chapters of his first epistle, the apostle John sets out the contrast between those born of God and those who embrace the phantom Jesus of the proto-Gnostics. John says that this contrast is as clear as the difference between light and darkness. Indeed, those who believe that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh will walk in the light of that one who is the light of the world. But those who deny that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh instead prefer to live in darkness. And so in the next section of this letter (chapter three), John continues to develop this theme when he tells us that the contrast between believers and the proto-Gnostics can be readily seen in the lives of those who are children of God.

The way in which someone demonstrates that they are a child of God is very simple. Those who have been brought from death to life by Christ will strive to obey God’s commandments, while those who embrace the gnostic heresy are not at all interested in obeying the commandments. This is because such people have deceived themselves into thinking that they have somehow gained enough knowledge and insight into the mysteries of Christ that they no longer sin. And since they think they have risen above their own sinfulness, their conduct inevitably reflects their indifference to the commandments of God. Those who abide in death (as John puts it) love darkness, hate Christ, and are indifferent to righteousness.

The Word Is Manifest in the Flesh

As we continue to work through the Epistles of John, we come to chapter three of 1 John, where John is discussing the contrast between those who are children of God and those who deny that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh (whom John describes as children of the devil). In this chapter John repeats a number of themes he’s already addressed in the earlier chapters. John does this to emphasize to his reader the importance of realizing that all those who believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh will walk in the light that Jesus came to reveal.

As John develops this contrast, he sets forth a cause and effect relationship. This can be expressed by the indicative and imperative moods (or as is often expressed in terms of the contrast between law and gospel). Those who are born again (the cause) will strive to obey God’s commandments (the effect). John’s opponents not only deny this cause and effect relationship, but they also deny that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh because of their view that matter is evil. They also see no need to reign in their sinful impulses because they think they have been able to purify their own souls through the religious secrets they have learned. To put it bluntly, they are about as wrong as one can be, hence John’s labeling their teaching as the “spirit of antichrist.”

John Wesley’s Perfectionism

Unfortunately, it is common in many evangelical circles to read this section of John’s epistle as though John is discussing sanctification and the Christian life, and to identify the issue that John is addressing as the question of whether or not Christians may advance to such a point in the Christian life that they are actually able to cease from sinning–so called “Christian perfectionism.” The most famous and influential of those advocating perfectionism is John Wesley, who, in his A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (1777),[1] discusses his view on this in the form of a series of questions and answers:

Q. What is Christian Perfection?

A. The loving God with all our hearts, mind, soul, and strength. This implies that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul; and that all the thoughts, words, and actions are governed by pure love.

Q. Do you affirm that this perfection excludes all infirmities, ignorance, and mistake?

A. I continually affirm the quite the contrary, and always have done so.

Q. But how can every thought, word, and work be governed by pure love, and still liable to ignorance and mistake?

A. I see no contradiction here; “A man may be filled with pure love, and still liable to mistake.”

As you may know, Wesley was converted in 1738 at a meeting of the Moravian Brethren at Aldersgate in London while hearing read aloud the forward to Martin Luther’s Commentary on Romans. It is too bad that Wesley didn’t read Luther’s commentary! In his defense of his doctrine of perfectionism, Wesley repeatedly cites from this section of 1 John, ensuring that these verses became very much a part of Wesley’s theology. To this day, Wesley’s stress upon moving beyond the first stage of Christian experience to a higher level of victory over sin still influences our discussion of these verses.

Imperfect Sinners Must Confess Their Sins

The apostle John is setting out a contrast between those who believe that Jesus was the word manifest in the flesh and those who do not. His focus is not upon distinguishing defeated from victorious Christians. Ironically, the apostle is actually writing to refute those who were arguing that Christians could rise above sin–hence the powerful words in verses 6-10 of chapter one.

If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

While Wesley left us an out–we can be “perfect” (and still not sin), but we still make mistakes and act out of ignorance–John seems to be speaking to an entirely different matter. According to the apostle, it is futile to hide our sins and then pretend (as the Gnostics were doing) that is is possible for people to actually stop sinning. The opening words of chapter two must ring in our ears. “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” John is not an antinomian–he is clear that Christians must strive to obey God’s commandments. But neither does John teach Christian Perfectionism, nor is he even addressing the matter Wesley sees in the passage. John is simply telling us that Christians will strive to obey God’s commandments and that the proto-Gnostics are not interested doing so, seeing no need to be obedient, having deceived themselves into believing that gnostic enlightenment has enabled them to rise above their sins.

So, when John writes in verse 6 of chapter 3, “No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him” and again in verse 9, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God,” John is not speaking of two stages (or levels) of Christian experience–those who live in defeat, and those who realize their victory in Christ and live a life of perfect love.

Indifference to Sin?

Rather, John is contrasting those who are born of God–who demonstrate that they are born of God by striving to obey, and those who have been taken in by the spirit of antichrist and who prefer to live in darkness. Such people keep on sinning (as their characteristic) and “practicing sin” with apparent indifference. That is the point of John’s contrast. This is why as we work our way through the balance of this section, it is vital that we keep in mind the difference between the indicative mood (God’s children will bear fruit), and the imperative mood (“bear fruit to prove you are God’s children”). Is John describing the differences between believers and these proto-Gnostics, or is John commanding us to rise above sin? Are John’s statements indicatives, or is he giving us imperatives?

So keeping this distinction between the indicative and the imperative in mind, we now turn to our text, verses 11-24 of chapter three. Recall that in the first two chapters, John already stressed the importance of obeying God’s commandments, a theme to which he now returns. Again, John focuses upon the importance of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ. As we’ve seen, Jesus Christ is not only God manifest in the flesh, he is also love incarnate. If we want to know what the law means when it commands us to love God and our neighbor, we look to the life of Jesus as recorded in the gospels. And because we are to abide in Christ and in his word, we too will strive to love God and our neighbor–specifically, in this case, our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Necessity of Love for the Brethren

In fact, as John reminds us in verse 11, “For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.” Since it was a characteristic of these proto-Gnostic groups plaguing the church in Asia Minor (especially in and around Ephesus) to claim to have knowledge of secret things revealed only to them, John counters this by reminding his reader that what he is teaching is the same message that the apostles have taught from the very beginning. Granted, it is not nearly as exciting as “secret knowledge” into the mysteries of the universe, but the commandment to love one another was given by none other than our Lord himself. In John 13:34, Jesus states, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.”

While, on the one hand, such a commandment is impossible to obey and can only be fulfilled by those who are covered by Christ’s imputed righteousness, nevertheless, this is what Christians are to do-love each other–because Christ’s perfect love of neighbor is imputed to them through faith. The commandments of God do not change. So, there is no need for any of John’s readers to even listen to those who claim to have “new” or “secret” teaching. The Gnostics claim to be in the “know,” but actually know nothing.

Cain the Vegan

Much like Paul does in his epistles, John now uses an example from redemptive history to illustrate his point. According to Genesis 4:1-16, Cain brought an offering to God which was not acceptable–Cain’s offering (of produce) was probably a thanksgiving offering like that Adam would have offered to the Lord before the Fall. But after the fall of the human race into sin, God requires a sin offering–hence Abel’s offering consisting of one of the firstborn animals from his herds. Angry that his offering was not accepted, Cain killed his brother, causing God’s curse to come upon the anguished Cain.

When John recounts the story of Cain and Abel, he does so as an illustration of those whose deeds are righteous (Abel) coming under persecution from those whose deeds are evil. Says John, “We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous.” Ultimately, John attributes this to the work of Satan–who was desperately trying to assassinate the messianic seed before the Messiah would come and crush his head. Given his hatred and jealousy of his brother, Cain is the perfect illustration of the world[2]–hence John’s use of the story of Cain as illustrative of the world which denies that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. “Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.”

The World Will Hate You

John’s point is that just as Cain (whose deeds were evil, because he did not believe the promise and was not justified) hated Abel and killed him, so too the world (as it lies under the control of the evil one) will hate all those who confess that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh. Not only have many antichrists already come–and antichrist is anyone who denies that Jesus is God in the flesh–but Christians should not be surprised that non-Christians will hate them. If we walk in the light of God’s word, the world will hate us because light exposes not only the sins of those who wish to keep them hidden, but light also exposes the errors of the Gnostic teachers plaguing the church. Light brings everything out into the open.

If you know the gospel of John, you know that Jesus himself told his disciples precisely the same thing in John 15:18. “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.” To identify with Christ is to be willing to endure the scorn of the world. Therefore, there will always be the temptation for a Christian to turn their back upon the incarnate word (Jesus) because the scorn of the world can be very great. This echoes John’s earlier warning back in verses 15-17 of chapter two.

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

In verse 14, John continues to make his contrast. The world “practices” its sin by hating Christ and his people. Christians, on the other hand, will be characterized by their love for Christ and his people. “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers.” Notice that once again John speaks of what Christians “know” in contrast to what the proto-Gnostics think they know. One of the sure signs that someone has passed from death to life (i.e., is now regenerate, “born again,”) is that they love those who have likewise been brought from death to life. Wesley jumps to the wrong conclusion when he takes John to mean that Christians will be able to love their brothers and sisters with a pure love. John is not addressing the question of whether or not we will love the brethren perfectly, but he is making the point that we will love our brothers and sisters, in contrast to the world, which hates us.

From Death to Life

This is because “whoever does not love abides in death.” For John, light, life, and love are necessarily connected. Those who have been given life (through the gospel) will walk in the light (not in darkness). Therefore, John can state that those who have life will love their brothers and sisters. The flip side is that death, darkness, and hatred are likewise connected. Those who practice hatred (i.e., who do not abide in love) do so because they are dead in sin. Those enslaved to their sinful nature practice what they are. They love darkness because they are dead in sin. They hate God’s people because they are dead in sin. Such people abide in death. They hate Christ, his people, and the light which comes from his word.

Having introduced Cain as an example, John alludes to him again in verse 15. “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” Those who do not have love are dead in sin. Inevitably, they manifest what they are, murderers, like Cain–remember the words of Jesus to this effect in John 8:44: “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” It should be clear that John is not stating that should someone take a life they cannot repent and be forgiven.

But John is pointing out that the characteristic of those whom he has called “children of the devil” is to hate God’s people and therefore they commit murder (in their hearts, if not with their hands). The fact that such people hate and murder their neighbor without any hint of repentance is just another manifestation of the fact that eternal life does not “abide” in them.

Jesus Laid Down His Life

Contrast that attitude with those whom Christ has made alive through the gospel. “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.” Remarkably, John points us back to the cross here in verse 16. In 1 John 2:1-2, He’s already told us that Jesus gave himself up as a propitiation for our sins, turning aside God’s wrath and anger toward us. In 3:5, John has told us “you know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.” Again we are directed to Jesus, who laid down his life for us when he died for all of our sins and turned aside God’s anger toward us.

Because Christ has done that (indicative), so too we should we be willing to lay down our lives (our most precious possession) for our fellow believers. Love is the evidence of new life, and love is, in essence, self-sacrifice–the very essence of what Jesus did for us on the cross.[3] His self-sacrifice stands in sharp contrast to hate, darkness and death–the characteristic of those in whom eternal life does not abide.

As we have seen throughout this epistle, John sees a direct connection between what we believe about Jesus–that he is the word manifest in the flesh who has died for our sins–and our conduct. John emphasizes this connection again in verse 17. “But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?” Jesus laid down his life for us. We should be willing (in light of his sacrifice) to give of our own to those in need. God’s love for us stirs our hearts to love others. Notice that the gospel does this–the emphasis upon God’s love–not the law. Were John to tell us “help those in need, or else God won’t love you,” we’d hate our brother in need. But in light of God’s love for us (who do not deserve it) our own sinful hearts are stirred to love others. Therefore, in verse 18, John can put it this way. “Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.” The knowledge of God’s love for us should motivate us to act on our neighbor’s behalf. And this love takes the form of concrete action, not mere talk.

In light of John’s emphasis upon walking in the light as demonstrated by our striving to obey God’s commandments, it is fitting that John now turns to the subject of the assurance of salvation. John fully understands that our sinful hearts will balk at the need to strive to obey the commandments. We are prone to self-condemnation which breeds fear and spiritual paralysis. John has been clear that obedience to God’s commandments and love for our brethren will characterize a Christian. But what about those times we don’t obey the commandments as we ought? What about those times we don’t love our brothers and sisters as we should? John will now address this very important point.

We Are of the Truth

In verses 19-20, John reminds us that God’s grace (and reassurance) is greater than our troubled hearts. Says John, “By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.” The very fact that John raises this question tells us that only Christians even worry about such things. Someone who is dead in sin, who walks in darkness, who is characterized by a heart filled with hatred toward God and his people, will never once be troubled in heart like John describes here. Only someone who has been brought from death to life has ever had this inner conversation which John describes as self- condemnation (our hearts), which amounts to a lack of assurance of God’s favor toward us.

According to John, when Christians understand the truth of God’s word they will see the need to love their brothers and sisters, as well as obey God’s commandments. Indeed, the preaching of the gospel (the truth) will create within us the desire to do this–as our catechism wisely reminds us, out of a sense of gratitude because of what God has done for us. Furthermore, the desire to obey and the beginning of obedience will reveal to us that we are Christ’s. Says John, from this we can “know” that we are of the truth, and be assured of God’s favor toward us. It is the desire to obey God’s law which proves that we are Christ’s. It is not, as Wesley argued, the degree of obedience which proves that we are Christ’s.

Therefore, whenever our hearts condemn us (which I take to mean, whenever we don’t live up to what God requires of us, which is inevitable), John reminds us that God, who knows everything, is still greater than our self-condemning hearts. While John doesn’t say so directly, it is certainly not a stretch to repeat of what the apostle has said in the opening verses of chapter 2. “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Indeed, upon being reminded that Jesus has already turned aside God’s wrath toward us, and upon being reminded that Jesus is presently in heaven interceding for us–good news in light of the fact that God knows everything about us, and yet Jesus (his son) can still save us–we are reminded that God’s grace is greater than our hearts (or any self-condemnation we feel when confronted by our sins). At the end of the day, John says, God’s grace is far greater than our sinful hearts. The gospel has the last word, not the self condemnation which comes from our own hearts!

Confidence in God’s Mercy

Such confidence in God’s grace is the ground for our continued efforts to strive to walk in the light and live out that contrast between Christians and the children of darkness. Therefore John can state in verses 21-22, “Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.” God’s love for us casts out the fear which keeps us from approaching him, so as to seek that grace we need to walk in the light. Here we see the principle set forth that the gospel (the indicative) gives us confidence and drives out fear and self-condemnation which prevent us from living in confidence, and from living in the comfort of knowing that our pitiful attempts at obedience actually please our heavenly Father.

John now makes this point explicitly in verses 23 and 24. “And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.” For John, faith in Christ (“believing in Jesus”) is the basis for our love of others. Even better, those who believe in Jesus are indwelt by the Holy Spirit who ensures that Christ abides in us (“so that we know”), and who also confirms to us that we are Christ’s as we strive to obey his commandments. It is interesting therefore, that when John gives us an imperative–“this is his command”–that imperative is to believe in Jesus, so that we might love one another! Again, in this we see that faith in Jesus will manifest itself in good works. The cause (the gospel) leads to the effect (good works and assurance). It is a shame that Wesley missed this so badly.

What Is the Application?

It is in a passage like this that we see how important it is to distinguish the indicative (the gospel) from the imperative (the law). It is through keeping this distinction clear that we know that we are Christ’s. As John as set out throughout this section, God gives us life through the gospel. And once we are born again, we will believe in Jesus and abide in his word. Those who have been born again–those for whom Christ has died, for whom he intercedes, and in whom his Spirit dwells (indicative)–will strive to obey his commandments (the imperatives). This is what distinguishes Christians from those who have been taken in by false teachers who worship a phantom Jesus.

For a Christian, while sin is inevitable, the practice of sin is not our characteristic, and our sin conflicts with God’s work within us. This is why once we become Christians our sin often troubles our hearts. And when that happens, John directs us not to the law (how you are doing in terms of obeying the commandments), nor does John urge us to move to a higher level of Christian experience (as did Wesley). No, John directs us back to the gospel, where we are told, God is greater than our troubled hearts. Self-condemnation does not have the final word. The gospel does. Yet, that said, we will all struggle with sin, even as we strive to obey the commandments. It is not through victory over sin that we know we are Christ’s. Rather, it is through the desire to obey and the condemnation of our hearts (the grief we feel when we sin) when we don’t, that we know we are Christ’s.

By this we know . . .

__________________________________

[1] John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, (London: The Epworth Press, 1976), 42.

[2] Stott, The Epistles of John, 144.

[3] Stott, The Epistles of John, 146.

Who teach that God does provide the believer with sufficient strength to persevere and is ready to preserve this strength in him if he performs his duty, but that even with all those things in place which are necessary to persevere in faith and which God is pleased to use to preserve faith, it still always depends on the choice of man’s will whether or not he perseveres.

For this view is obviously Pelagian; and though it intends to make men free it makes them sacrilegious. It is against the enduring consensus of evangelical teaching which takes from man all cause for boasting and ascribes the praise for this benefit only to God’s grace. It is also against the testimony of the apostle: “It is God who keeps us strong to the end, so that we will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:8).

___________________________________

The Arminian error addressed here reflects a long-standing but erroneous teaching found in the church to the effect that “if the human will seeks grace, then God responds to human willing by giving more grace to those who take avail of it.” The assumption here is that, even though fallen, the human will retains the ability to respond to a universal, potential form of grace that does not save but makes salvation possible for those willing to seek it. In this case, the Arminian holds that those who persevere are those willing to seek grace and then choose to persevere with God’s help. The Arminians of the time of the Synod spoke of God giving “sufficient power to persevere,” or of God giving “all things necessary to persevere.” This makes salvation conditional and dependent upon human willing, rather than upon the effectual grace and on-going work of Christ as prophet, priest, and king, spoken of throughout the New Testament.

The Arminian error assumes that fallen human nature was merely weakened by the fall, but not enslaved to a sinful human nature. Such a view—which appears from time to time in church history, most notably in the writings of Pelagius—has been condemned as far back as the Council of Orange in 529. In Canon Four of that council, we find the statement, “if anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit…” before citing Philippians 2:13, “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

The Canons correctly point out that the exaltation of human willing over the reality of the consequences of Adam’s fall upon human willing is actually the old Pelagian error come back to life. God’s grace is subject to human willing. “For this view is obviously Pelagian; and though it intends to make men free it makes them sacrilegious.” As the refutation points out, this view has been condemned by those holding to evangelical teaching as contrary to Scripture, citing 1 Corinthians 1:8. It is God “who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Episode Synopsis:

Paul’s words in Romans 2:13 come as quite a shock to the Christian ear of those who have grown up with a theology that God is all-loving, but not holy in the sense described by Paul: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” These words are enough to send shivers down the spine of any conscientious Christian willing to examine themselves in light of the demands of God’s law. How can God be so strict? How can such a God be loving? How is that fair? If God requires perfection, this would mean that everyone is bound for eternal punishment. Yes, it does. But that is only half the story.

Reformed Christians affirm that Adam—as the biological and federal head of the human race—was created in a covenant of works. Therefore, Adam lived in Eden under a time of divine probation. He must keep YHWH’s commands perfectly on behalf of all humanity. If he does, God will confirm him in righteousness and glorify human nature. But should he disobey, he will plunge the entire human race into sin, guilt, and death. The covenant of works remains in force, as indicated by Paul in Romans 2:6, which is repeated in 2:13. Paul’s words have generated much controversy, which we will discuss, not because Paul isn’t clear, but because he is—crystal clear. His words challenge many people’s assumptions about how a loving God can demand such perfection from sinners. Yes, God is supremely loving. But he is also holy.

Romans 2:12–16 is part of that section of chapter two in which Paul continues to expose Jewish hypocrisy for criticizing Gentile behavior, all the while doing the same things the Gentiles were doing. Paul now explains why the Gentiles (who did not have the law) are as guilty as the Jews who had the law given through Moses at Mount Sinai. It is because God’s law is written upon the human heart by virtue of the fact that all people are created in God’s image. This is the basis for natural law—God’s revelation in the natural order (the civil kingdom and the ordering of society)—and is revealed through reason, the conscience, and human emotions.

So, there is much here in this part of Romans well worth our consideration. And just so I don’t leave you hanging, the second part of the story answers all the objections just mentioned. In the gospel, through the merits of Jesus Christ—the law keeper—God freely gives what he demands of us under the law. There’s no more loving act imaginable. And we’ll get there, Lord willing, when we get to Romans 3:21 and following. But for now, only doers of the law can be justified. The bad news comes before the good news.

Show Notes:

It was brutally hot in my “studio” (a spare bedroom). There were frequent interruptions (multiple neighbor’s loud air conditioning, a half-dozen airplanes, three jets on their way to LAX, a helicopter that wouldn’t leave, a drone hovering overhead (that’s new), crows, and an odd noise which I thought was my chair squeaking—turned out it was my stomach growling! Other than that, the recording session was uneventful.

I cannot tell you how hard it is refrain myself from making a rather obvious bad pun when recording—”Wright is wrong.”

Recommended Resources:

Select Resources for the Study of Romans

A “Review” of David VanDrunen’s book on natural law

David VanDrunen on “Why Protestant Christianity Needs a Theology of Natrual Law”

Richard Muller on the covenant of works in Reformed Orthodoxy

Turretine On “Merit” in the Covenant of Works

Meredith Kline on Objections to the Covenant of Works

Music:

(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegret

Who Said That?

The [Roman] Church, even in the case of a serious error in matters of faith and morals, can go on living; the errors of popes and bishops (like those of theologians) are a very serious and portentous affair, but not ultimately a threat to the Church’s existence.

Leave your answer/guess in the comments section below. Please, no Google or ChatGP searches!

Update: This is from the renegade Roman Catholic theologian Hans Kung in discussion with Karl Rahner from the July 7, 1973, edition of the magazine America: The Jesuit Review. Kung famously denied the Romans church’s infallibility.

In a recent comment on X (June 2026), a noted evangelical apologist offered a thought experiment based upon a conversation with a colleague (a professor of New Testament) about human nature in a future millennial age. He raised two points for consideration: “Will Christ reign on earth for some time AFTER His return?” “And if Satan is absent, would humanity finally choose to follow Him?” The first question assumes that the answer is “yes”—a standard premillennial assumption. The second question assumes the premillennial notion that Satan is not bound until Christ’s return and that the Devil’s absence is associated with the beginning of Christ’s one-thousand-year reign upon the earth.

The colleague gave the following response (summarized by the apologist) to the second question: “even after the return of Jesus and under His perfect reign, the human tendency is still to turn away from God and choose brokenness. Understanding this condition of mankind helps make sense of the millennium as a vindication of God’s justice.”

Such an answer to the second question exposes a serious flaw in premillennial expectations regarding the future course of redemptive history, one which premillennarians often and glibly dismiss as though this rather obvious problem has no impact upon the millennial question: “How can there be people on the earth in natural, unresurrected and redeemed bodies, still retaining a sinful human nature and susceptible to the wiles of Satan, when Jesus is, supposedly, physically reigning on earth?”

Just who are these people, and how do they get through the resurrection and the judgment that occur at Christ’s return without being raised bodily from the dead? Christ’s return does not commence something new—a millennial age—it brings the course of human history to an end. Christ’s return is described as the “Day of the Lord” (2 Thessalonians 2:2–3; 2 Peter 3:4). It is the time of the general resurrection (Daniel 12:1–4; John 5:29; Acts 24:15; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Revelation 20:4–5, 12), when all people are judged (Matthew 25:31–46; 2 Thessalonians 1:6–9; Revelation 20:11–15). Furthermore, the Bible is clear that when Jesus returns, there is cosmic disruption and the creation of a new heaven and earth (Romans 8:21; 2 Peter 3:10). If lions lie down with lambs, it occurs on a renewed earth—where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13).

The unanswered question for premillennarians is simply this: “After Christ returns, how can there be people present on the earth who turn away from God (in premillennial theology, Jesus is present on earth and engaged in some sort of earthly rule) and who ‘choose brokenness’ (whatever that means???)?” Please explain how this is a “vindication of God’s judgment,” since that judgment has already occurred when Jesus returned at the end of the age.

I just scratch my head—too many times, I might add.

I discuss the implausibilty of premillennialism in more detail here: Episode Two: "This Age and the Age to Come: The Implausibility of Premillennialism"

An excerpt from “Not Ashamed of the Gospel” Season Five/Episode Five (Romans 1:16-17)

The message of the cross is the power of God unto salvation. The gospel summons all who hear it to faith in Jesus Christ. Those who believe when the gospel is preached to them manifest what Paul calls the “obedience of faith.” The gospel saves those, but only those, who believe [trust] in Jesus Christ. Paul is not addressing the exceptional cases here–for example, such as what happens to children of believers who die before coming to faith, or the thief on the cross, and so on. Paul’s point is that the gospel summons us to believe it when we hear it. Those who obey that call and believe are “saved,” while those who are summoned but who do not believe will face the wrath of God on the day of judgment. It is correct to say that those who reject the gospel when it is preached to them, disobey God and remain under his judgment unless and until they trust in Christ.

In his wonderful little commentary on Romans, Anders Nygren, makes a very important point, well worth our consideration.

The gospel and faith belong together inseparably. Therefore we may not speak of faith as something which could exist apart from the gospel. Faith is not a state of the soul which man must have, that by its aid he may receive the gospel. It is the gospel which is primary, which creates faith and awakens it in us. When one hears the gospel and is conquered by it, that is faith. Faith is not prior to the gospel and independent of it. It [faith] arises only through one’s meeting with the gospel [1].

Nygren’s point is that saving faith arises only in connection to the preaching of the gospel. Faith is not our contribution to our salvation, nor is faith the one work God requires of us in order to be saved. Rather, as a demonstration of his power, God creates faith in our hearts through the preaching the gospel just as when he created the universe from nothing. While God creates faith through the hearing of the gospel (cf. Romans 10:17), at the very same time, faith is our own genuine and intensely personal response to God’s promise of deliverance from his wrath, because of the genuine freedom which God restores to us through the power of the gospel.[2] Faith is not a human work. Faith does not contribute anything. It is not a vague religious sentiment or emotion–the common meaning today. Rather, faith receives what God freely offers to us in Christ. Faith receives (trusts) the saving benefits of Jesus Christ. To have faith in Jesus Christ is to trust (believe) in Christ’s power to save us from our sins. B. B. Warfield points out,

It is accordingly, solely from its object that faith derives its value . . . . The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Savior on whom it rests . . . . It is not strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power of faith resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith; and in this the whole biblical representation centers, so that we could not more radically misconceive it than by transferring to faith even the smallest fraction of that saving energy which is attributed in the Scriptures solely to Christ Himself [3].

Salvation is promised to all who believe–the “all” ( παντíς) emphasizing the fact that there are no ethnic distinctions when it comes to God’s salvation. Paul quickly reminds us of an important redemptive historical reality. The gospel is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe, “to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Based upon the prior course of the history of salvation, it is undeniable that the Jew has distinct priority in God’s plan. God did not choose the Incas, the Aztecs, the Mongols, the Chinese, the Normans, Franks, or Saxons to receive the Scriptures and secure the birth of the Messiah. God chose the Jews to be that people through whom salvation would come to the Gentile nations.

_________________________________

[1] Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 78.

[2] Cranfield, Commentary on Romans, I.90.

[3] B. B. Warfield, "The Biblical Conception of Faith" in Biblical Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 502-04.

Christians Walk in the Light

The apostle John makes a direct connection between Jesus as God manifest in the flesh and the fact that Jesus died to take away the guilt of our sins. But there were some, John says, “who went out from us, but who were not of us” and who were doing everything in their power to deny this essential connection (1 John 2:19). As John has set out in the opening chapters of this epistle, those who are Christ’s will live in the blessedness of the knowledge that their sins are forgiven. Those who are Christ’s have the benefit of knowing that Jesus Christ is presently in heaven interceding for them as their advocate before the Father. And those who are Christ’s, will not be characterized by sin–something John describes as “practicing sin.” Why? Because God’s people walk in the light. Those who walk in the light will wage war upon their sins as well as strive to mirror that righteousness which is found in Christ. The behavior of God’s children stands in sharp contrast to those whom John will now characterize as children of the Devil, who practice “sinning.”

The Second Section of the Letter

We now make our way into the third chapter of John’s first epistle, which includes the second main section of this letter.[1] Throughout this portion of his epistle, John will repeat–for the sake of emphasis–a number of themes he’s already set out in chapter two. In 1 John 2:28-3:10, John once again addresses the importance of obeying the commandments of the Lord. As John will put it, Christians are people who are characterized by the “practice of righteousness” and not by the “practice of sin.” Then, in verses 11-18, John reminds his readers of the necessity of loving their brothers and sisters in Christ, while in verses 19-24, John speaks of the assurance of our salvation in light of our own sinful hearts. And then in the first six verses of chapter 4, John returns to the theme of discerning truth from error. Although in many ways this section of 1 John is a repetition of the first section–something which was often done in letters of this period– John now tweaks each of these points to emphasize their importance in light of the challenges then facing the churches to which John is writing.

Throughout our time in these epistles, we have seen that historical context is everything. If we don’t understand why John writes these letters as well as have knowledge of the errors he is refuting, we’ll make a mess of things–as many have done, especially with the section we are currently covering. The apostle John writes these three epistles at some point toward the end of the first century. While at many points in these epistles John alludes to his gospel–likely written a short time earlier–John is writing to both state and defend the doctrine that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. The incarnation of Christ–that Jesus is fully God and fully man–is the very foundation of the Christian faith. To deny the incarnation is to deny Christianity. To deny the incarnation is to embrace the spirit of antichrist.

The Reality and Importance of the Incarnation

The critical importance of understanding that Jesus is the word of life manifest in the flesh can be seen when John opens this epistle by making an emphatic truth claim grounded in John’s own encounter with Jesus earlier in his life. John had seen Jesus perform miracles with his own eyes. John had heard Jesus preach with his own ears. John had even touched Jesus with his own hands. Therefore, Jesus is a flesh and blood Savior, and Christianity is necessarily grounded in history. As B. B. Warfield once pointed out, our most important doctrines are also historical facts. Either Jesus was God in the flesh, or he wasn’t. Since John saw Jesus, heard Jesus and touched Jesus, John sees Jesus as the truth incarnate, as well as that light of the world who has come to cast out the darkness of sin and false teaching.

The reason John must state and defend this basic point of Christian theology is that in and around the city of Ephesus (where John was living as an elderly man) a form of early Gnosticism had appeared in which it was held that reality consisted of a dualism between spirit (good) and matter (evil). According to this primitive Gnosticism, God was pure spirit, but since matter was evil, it was supposedly impossible for God to take to himself a true human nature, since matter was intrinsically evil. This meant the incarnation of Jesus Christ was an impossibility. But how then do we account for physical appearances of Jesus throughout the gospels? Well, these proto-Gnostics were arguing that while Jesus was fully God he only appeared (or took the form) of a man. Jesus was fully God, but took human form as a phantom or apparition. This is known as the heresy of docetism, which John directly associates with the spirit of antichrist. As we saw last time, John warns the churches that many of these docetic antichrists had already come. In fact, says John, anyone who denies that Jesus is God in human flesh has denied both the Father and the Son. This is no small error with no small consequences.

John’s Response to Error – Back to Basics

As we work our way through this second section of this letter when John returns to the basic themes he set out earlier, we must keep in mind John’s reason for writing. 1). To remind his readers that Jesus is a flesh and blood Savior who offered up himself as a propitiation for our sins, turning aside God’s wrath and anger toward us, and is that same flesh and blood Savior who is now in heaven as our advocate before the Father. 2). John has reminded his readers that those who walk in the light strive to obey the commandments of God, while those who are interested in the secret “knowledge” about Jesus taught by these false teachers have little interest in God’s law. Those who are Christ’s walk in the light, while those who have been taken in by those who have departed from the faith, actually prefer the darkness and their esoteric secrets. The contrast between the two (Christians and apostates) is contrast between light and darkness. John’s point is that it is very easy to tell who is who.

Having made these points previously, John now returns to them in the second section of this letter, (our text, 1 John 2:28-3:10). Again, we need to consider what John has already said earlier so as to understand his point here. John’s starting point is that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. Since Jesus is both the word of life (the content of the gospel) as well as the light of God who has come into the world, John sees a direct connection between what we believe about Jesus and how we live. If Jesus is light, then Christians should walk in the light which Jesus came to reveal. For John, this is not some secret teaching which only a few enlightened followers are able to master. No, all Christians must strive to obey God’s commandments because Jesus is the very embodiment of those commandments.

Recall that in the opening verses of chapter two, John has already told us that Jesus has died (as a propitiation for our sins) for all of those times we have failed to keep these commandments. Jesus is presently in heaven pleading our cause, ensuring that we continue to believe (and persevere to the end of our lives in faith). John has carefully distinguished the indicative (what Jesus has done for us) from the imperative (what we must do because we are Christ’s). Those for whom Jesus has died and for whom he intercedes will strive to obey God’s law. Why? Because they walk in the light their conduct will reflect the light of God’s word. Therefore what we believe works itself out in our lives (or at least it should).

Beloved Children and the Parousia

With that in mind, we come to verse 28, in which John speaks as the last living apostle, referring to his readers as “beloved children,” a term which conveys a grand-fatherly authority as well as affection for his readers. “And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.” We have heard this theme before–we must abide (or remain) in Christ, which is something we will do because Jesus has chosen us to abide and bear fruit (John 15:16). Having been chosen by the Father, Jesus has died for us, and we will remain in Christ, because Jesus is currently our advocate before the Father in heaven, ensuring that our faith does not fail.

But here John adds a new element–Christ’s appearing. This adds an important point of emphasis. Believers are to abide in Christ so that when Jesus appears at the end of the age, they will be confident and not ashamed by their conduct. John’s reference to Christ’s second coming is important on several accounts. First, when John speaks of Christ’s parousia (“appearing”) he uses a word which is used in connection with the visit of a king or emperor. The Lord who is absent from us on earth (yet presently in heaven interceding for us) will return in a visible and dramatic way.[2] Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and he will return with great glory.[3]

John’s second point it that when Christ returns, people will react in one of two ways. One group will be confident (or assured), while the other will be ashamed (and afraid). Those who abide in Christ, and who walk in the light should be confident when the Lord returns. But those who prefer darkness should be afraid because Christ’s coming will expose their sins, and reveal for all to see the depth of their error in denying that Jesus is God in human flesh. The supposed “phantom” Jesus will demonstrate that he has flesh, blood, and bones–much to the chagrin of the proto-Gnostics. Therefore, Christians wait in anticipation and awe for the Lord’s return, while non-Christians dread it, dismiss it, and (as Peter says) mock it. “Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, `Where is the promise of his coming (2 Peter 3:3)?”

A couple of important qualifications are in order here. For many of us who were raised with the “be careful little hands what you do” theology, the return of Christ was something we learned to fear. We were told that if we have unconfessed sins we would not go in the Rapture and be left behind to the face the antichrist. But John, on the other hand, exhorts Christians not to dread the Lord’s return, but to be confident about that day when Jesus appears. While Christians will be in awe of Christ when he returns (given the fact that this is a revelation of his glory), we will not be afraid of Christ. Jesus himself will assure struggling sinners that they are his. Jesus himself will ease our fears, and wipe the tears from our eyes. For believers, the second coming of Christ is pure gospel, that blessed day when we receive everything God has promised to his people. But for non-Christians, the second coming of Christ is pure law. It is a day they should dread. It is that time when all the lights come on–so to speak–exposing all the sinful and shameful things done in darkness.

Believers Will Bear Fruit

In verse 29, John unpacks this a bit more fully. “If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.” Here again, it is vital to keep the indicative and the imperative moods in mind. Christ is righteous (indicative/gospel). Jesus was perfectly obedient to God’s commandments, and Christians know that to be true from the gospel accounts. So, if we know that Christ is righteous (and as Paul tells us, that same righteousness which Jesus has earned has been imputed to us through the means of faith), then those who are Christ’s will practice righteousness. Those who are born of Christ (which is the same as John’s reference to being “born again” in John 3–the indicative), will practice (or do) righteousness (the imperative/command). Therefore, John’s point is really quite simple. “A person’s righteousness is thus the evidence of his new birth, not the cause or condition of it.”[4] Those who are born again will strive to obey God’s commandments. There is a cause (new birth) and effect (obedience) relationship here.

Since it is highly likely that the proto-Gnostics were equating the new birth (being born again) with the acquisition of secret knowledge, John’s response to them is to affirm that it is righteousness of conduct, not secret knowledge, which is the evidence of being “born of him.”[5] This righteous conduct can be easily observed, while adherence to Gnostic and docetic secrets inevitably manifests itself in indifference to the commandments.

The mention of regeneration in this context moves the Apostle to consider God’s love for sinners. As we read in verse 1 of chapter three, “See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are.” When we consider what it means to be born of God–God has raised us from the dead when we were unable and unwilling to come to faith in Christ, and when we all deserve to face God’s wrath because of our sins–we cannot help but see in this the love of God. We, who deserve his wrath, instead receive his favor. Once we were dead in sin, now we are God’s children. And all of this is because God is love, not because we deserve his love.

The World Does Not Know

John goes on to say, “The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.” If the reason why we are children of God is because of God’s love for us when we did not deserve it, then the reason why the world does not know us (i.e., know us to be God’s children) stems from the fact that the world does “not know” that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. Notice the irony here: The world which claims to have “knowledge,” cannot recognize either Christ or his people. While the false teachers claim to possess some sort of secret insights into the real meaning of the gospel, the reality is that they do not know the very thing which counts most–that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. And because they do not know who Jesus is, they cannot recognize God’s people (those loved by the Father) even though they are ones who walk in the light and who strive to obey God’s commandments. The true irony here is that those who claim to possess secret knowledge know nothing whatsoever about the Father, and are so blind to the truth they wouldn’t know if it . . .

Again, John speaks to his audience in the most intimate of terms. “Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” At this point John returns to the importance of the Lord’s second coming as an important focus of the Christian life. Because of God’s love for us, we are (presently) his children. But Jesus will return (appear) at the end of the age. And when he does, John says, on that day we will be like him, and finally, we shall see him as he is.

No doubt, there is a strong echo here from Job 19:25-27: “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another.” Likewise, John believes that when Jesus returns, we will be raised from the dead and that we will possess the same kind of resurrection body Jesus did (Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 15). On that day we will be like him (in his resurrection) and we will see him as he is (because as raised from the dead, only then can we behold Jesus’s post-resurrection glory without being consumed). Throughout the history of the church, this vision of Christ in all his glory has been known as the “Beatific Vision.” But this we cannot see, until we die or our Lord returns, whichever comes first.

In verse 3, John is also clear about the fact that those who long for the Lord’s return will live in the light of this blessed hope. “And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.” The knowledge that the Lord will return and that we will meet him with confidence (John speaks of this in terms of “hope”) becomes the motivation for Christians to continue to purify themselves from their sin and its consequences. As Jesus is pure, so should we be pure. Notice that John does not cast this in terms of fear–“Jesus is pure, therefore you should be, lest you be ashamed at his coming.”

The Indicative and Imperative

To do this is to confuse law and gospel and the indicative and the imperative. The indicative (gospel) is that the Lord (who is pure) will return for those for whom he has died and for whom he makes intercession. The imperative (law) is that because this is true, be confident and express that confidence by preparing for his return, i.e, purifying yourself. People who live in fear of the Lord’s return will often times attempt to hide their sin (something John has told us we cannot do), rather than dealing with our sin (which we cannot hide from God). We see the wisdom of our fathers in the faith, when they spoke of gratitude for what Christ has done for us as the best motivation to do the works God requires of his people.

In verses 4-10, John shifts his focus from that hope associated with Christ’s return, to the righteousness which Jesus established when he appeared in the flesh in his messianic mission. Again, a word of caution before we proceed. Many have read these verses as though John were teaching us about the possibility of victory over all sin in the context of sanctification. Many, such as Wesley, saw in these verses an exhortation to move beyond defeat to a state of Christian perfection, because in Christ, sin’s power over us is broken.

But John is not talking about the question of whether or not a Christian can rise above sin–John has been quite plain about this, if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the father in our defense (2:2). Rather, John is drawing a contrast between the conduct of those who walk in the light (those who know that Jesus is the word made flesh), and those who claim to have “knowledge” yet foolishly believe that Jesus is not a “flesh and blood” Savior. Those interested in “secret knowledge” are not interested in obeying God’s commandments. This is John’s point–how those who walk in the light are not characterized by sinful behavior. They still sin, but sin is a contradiction of who they are in Christ. Sin is not their characteristic, as it is of those who walk in darkness.

The Practice of Sin, Not the Presence of Sin

So, in verse 4, John set up this contrast as follows. “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.” Everyone sins and sin is defined as “lawlessness,” which simply means that they do not obey God’s commandments. We either do not do what God commands, or else we do what God commands us not to do. John understands that everyone–even Christians–will sin. But those who “practice sin” (note the ESV’s translation in contrast to the NIV “everyone who sins”) is making the point that those who practice sin also practice lawlessness. The issue here is “what is it that characterizes someone who walks in the light?” Indifference to sin? Or a struggle with sin? The former is true of those who walk in darkness-they just plain don’t care about these matters. While those who walk in the light cannot live in indifference to their sin–they struggle with their sin.

John returns to the indicative here: “You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.” Jesus offered himself as a propitiation for our sins. This why he came in the flesh. There is an echo here from the famous “suffering servant” prophecy in Isaiah 52-53. In the song of the suffering servant Isaiah speaks of Jesus in these terms.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

With Isaiah’s prophecy certainly in the background,[6] John now speaks of the fact that not only did Jesus die for our sins, but that he himself was without sin.

John refers to both Christ’s active and passive obedience. In his active obedience, Jesus fulfilled all righteousness so that we might be counted as righteous when his righteousness is imputed to us through faith. And Jesus was God manifest in the flesh so that he might take away the guilt of our sins when he offered himself up as the propitiation for our sins (his “passive” obedience). Christians “know” this! It is the gospel. It is the message that gave us life in the first place. This is the message, John says, in which we must abide.

We Are Not To Be Characterized By Sinful Conduct

Notice the contrast set out in verse 6 between those for whom Christ has died, and those who have imbibed from the Gnostic heresy. “No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.” John is not telling us that when we become Christians we cease from sinning. He is stating that those who walk in the light, and who know that Jesus is without sin, cannot commit sin and remain indifferent to it, or make no effort to obey God’s commandments without showing some concern for righteousness. Those whom John is warning us about are not concerned with their sin. They are only concerned with gaining “secret knowledge” which tells them they stopped sinning long ago. People who sin without remorse show themselves not to be Christians.

The indicatives are now framed in the form of a series of contrasts verses 7-10.

Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Those who practice righteousness, demonstrate themselves to be God’s children. Those who practice sinning, demonstrate that they are deceived by Satan (therefore, his “children”). Yet, Jesus appeared to destroy the work of Satan whose ways these people want to emulate.

No one who is born again practices sin (with indifference), thereby demonstrating that they are Christ’s. Their conduct, will in some sense, mirror that of Jesus himself. Furthermore, Christians will strive to love their brothers and sisters in Christ. But those who are children of the Devil (who walk in darkness), are characterized by an indifference to sin and lack of interest in the commandments of God. They walk in darkness. John’s point is that we should be able to tell rather quickly who belongs to Christ and who doesn’t by whether or not they struggle with sin–not necessarily by their victory over sin, but by the struggle with sin.

John’s point then is to set out a clear contrast between those who believe that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh, and those who do not. When Wesley read this section of 1 John through the lens of Christian Perfectionism and taught that this passage implies that Christians can reach a point where they can cease from sinning, Wesley not only badly misreads 1 John, he so confuses the indicative and the imperative (the law and the gospel) that he places an impossible yoke on the backs of Christians which the apostle John never intended. This does tremendous damage to countless tender consciences and bruised reeds. John is both comforting God’s “dear children” as well as reminding them that because they are born of God, they will walk in the light and not practice sin.

What then, Should We Take With Us?

Simply put, John is contrasting those who believe that Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh, who appeared to take away sins, with those who have embraced the phantom docetic Jesus of the Gnostics. Whereas before, John put the contrast in terms of the differences between darkness and light, here he contrasts the children of God who practice righteousness, and the children of the Devil who practice sin. As John sees it, those who are born of God long for the Lord’s appearing. We grow confident–not in our own righteousness, but in the grace and mercy of the Savior, who appeared to take away sin and adopt us as children of the Father.

Because God has chosen us, Christ has died for us, and because he intercedes for us, let us practice righteousness and walk in the light. Because he appeared to take away sins, we confidently await his glorious appearing at the end of the age. For on that day, we shall be like him, and we will see him as he is. And in that day, we shall bask in Christ’s victory over sin!

___________________________________

[1] See the discussion of this in Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 139-140.

[2] Stott, The Epistles of John, 121.

[3] Smalley points out that John uses a chiastic structure here: Parousia (v. 28), new birth (v. 29), new birth (v. 1), parousia (v. 2). Cf. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 140.

[4] Stott, The Epistles of John, 122.

[5] Stott, The Epistles of John, 122.

[6] Stott, The Letters of John, 127.

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that the perseverance of true believers is not an effect of election or a gift of God produced by Christ’s death, but a condition of the new covenant which man, before what they call his “peremptory” election and justification, must fulfill by his free will.

For Holy Scripture testifies that perseverance follows from election and is granted to the chosen by virtue of Christ’s death, resurrection, and intercession: “The chosen obtained it; the others were hardened” (Rom. 11:7); likewise, “He who did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not, along with him, grant us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised—who also sits at the right hand of God, and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom. 8:32–35).

_______________________________________________

It is an odd feature of Christian theology that doctrinal errors are much more complicated and convoluted in their structure than positive statements and summations of biblical truths. This is the case with the rejection of errors under the five heads of doctrine published at Dort. In these sections, the Canons address specific charges raised against the Reformed churches in Holland in the early 1600s. They tend to be a bit more time-bound than the doctrinal affirmations set forth in the articles, but nevertheless, we hear many of the same kinds of arguments against Reformed doctrines today.

The specific error being addressed is that as a consequence of starting with the premise of human freedom—which, according to Arminians, Adam’s race retains in large measure even after the fall into sin—the possibility of perseverance in faith to the end must likewise be conditioned upon the continual exercise of human freedom (i.e., our free will). This shifts both the merit needed to satisfy God’s demands and the ground of our salvation away from election and our deliverance from the guilt and power of sin—secured for us by Christ’s death upon the cross.

The Reformed affirm that from beginning to end, our salvation is grounded in God’s love and grace, with our faith and repentance arising from the prior regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. But the Arminian contends that we obtain grace by an act of our wills (how much that act is dependent upon God’s grace is a debated point), that we continue to believe through our willingness to do so, and that if we persevere unto the end, it is only because we continued to exercise our freedom to believe until the end of our lives. While the Reformed understand salvation from the guilt and power of sin to be grounded solely in the grace of God, the Arminians instead locate the ground in human willing and freedom.

The authors of the Canons simply cite Romans 8:32–35 and 11:7 in refutation of the Arminian error. Their response reiterates the point made in Article 8.

Episode Synopsis:

The church in Rome was predominately Gentile–made up of recent converts from Greco-Roman paganism to Christianity. Such Gentiles knew little if anything about the Old Testament, nor its central figures, Abraham, Moses, and David. They knew that Jewish Christians cared about dietary restrictions, as well as circumcision–a surgical procedure which seemed bizarre to former Gentile pagans. They knew the Jews revered the law of Moses–which they claimed to be the very commandments from God. Gentiles ate things Jews did not. They touched things Jews regarded as unclean. As new Christians, Gentiles were learning about the evils of idolatry and the importance of rejecting the libertine sexual ethics and practices of Roman life in favor of a biblical sexuality. But they were also learning about Moses, Abraham, the law, and the covenants God made with Abraham and Moses.

Paul has been clear in the opening chapter of his letter to Rome. “You Gentiles may not have known who Moses was, nor why the commandments God gave to Israel through him at Mount Sinai were so important, but you do know what is right and what is wrong because God has made it plain to you through the created order, which, until coming to faith in Jesus, you tried to suppress in unrighteousness. You may claim ignorance, but you knew deep down inside that the things you were doing lead to death.”

But Paul is not finished. Even as he exposes Gentile godlessness and the futility of exchanging the truth of God for pagan nonsense, you can almost hear the Jewish Christians in Rome cheering Paul on. Eyewitnesses of bad Gentile behavior and victims of Gentile oppression, Jewish converts, of course, were thrilled to hear Paul “give it to them good.” “About time someone called out the Gentiles for their sinful and immoral practices.”

But as the second chapter of Romans unfolds, Paul shifts gears and raises the uncomfortable reality of Jewish hypocrisy. “OK, you Jews who criticize the Gentiles, do you do the same things they do?” “How can you judge the Gentiles when you are no better.” The truth is, God is going to judge all people according to their works–Jew and Gentile. The blessing/curse principle will apply to all humanity. Those who do good will receive God’s blessing, while those who do not keep God’s commands will face him on the day of judgment. Yes, Paul has good news to proclaim, but there can be no good news until we realize that we are sinful, law-breakers, and deserving of God’s wrath whether we be Jew or Gentile.

Show Notes:

Several airplanes interrupted the recording session, but the real issue was the heat (again). My neighbor’s AC was running most of the time, and I was able to remove the rattle and hum. I tried to record in the morning, but it was still hot and muggy.

Recommended Resources:

Select Resources for the Study of Romans

Clark: Turretin on merit in the covenant of works

Irons: Kline on Objections to the Covenant of Works

Kline on Works and Grace

Music:

(Shutterstock): Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op 92m, second movement, Allegret